Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS) BILL

As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums which are so payable under any enactment relating to superannuation.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine.)

11.7 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "such," and to insert:
the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, or such earlier.
The discussion on the Second Reading revealed the great desire of the House that the date of the termination of the Mandate should be written into the Bill. The Bill, as presented, had left the date

to be determined by Order in Council, and that situation arose because there had been expressed in all parts of the House at an earlier date the desire that the civil administration should come to an end at a date sooner than 15th May if at all possible. There never was any desire that the date should be extended beyond 15th May, and in all our negotiations and our statements of policy to the United Nations, 15th May has always been firmly stated. We have, however, in accordance with the wishes of the House, tried to meet the point by making it perfectly clear that 15th May is the date for the termination of the Mandate, with a proviso that if it should happen that, for the convenience of every one, the date may be sooner, such provision is inserted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We are obliged to the Secretary of State for making this alteration in the Bill. He will notice that a little later on the Order Paper we have a similar Amendment which, if I may say so, he trumped only yesterday and we are much obliged to him. I think it is suitable to point out at this stage of our discussions that almost all the points of substance which we placed on the Order Paper, with immense foresight and skill, have been accepted and trumped by the Secretary of State. That is a satisfactory indication of how the work of Parliament ought to be conducted—that is, that the vision and the energy should come from the Opposition, and that the Government should follow suit.
As to the substance of this Amendment, we all agree that it is of great importance, and the wording of the Secretary of State is slightly better than our wording. We say
not later than the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight,
and he says,
the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, or such earlier,
which, I think, carries out the undertaking he gave on Second Reading. We are somewhat surprised that the date was not put in the Bill originally, as that would have made the situation very much clearer from the start. The Secretary of State has given his reason for not inserting the date in the Bill, namely that it was thought possible that an earlier date might be thought desirable. That does


not fit in with the somewhat alarming statement he made on Second Reading that he was not sure there would be any Commission available from the United Nations on 15th May. I am surprised there is still so much uncertainty about what is to happen on the date, and that the Government did not insert the date in the original draft of the Bill. However, this makes a very good start to our discussion on the Committee stage, and I express gratitude to the Government for putting down the Amendment, which meets our point of view.

Mr. Warbey: In order to assist the very genial atmosphere with which the Committee stage is beginning, I wish to say that on behalf of the unofficial opposition, we very much welcome the decision of the Government to write the date unmistakably into the Bill. We made our position perfectly clear on Second Reading that we desired to see the British Mandate terminated at the earliest possible date, and British troops withdrawn from Palestine also at the earliest possible date. There would have been no need to re-emphasise this matter had not the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) rather darkened counsel in his winding up speech on Second Reading by suggesting that some of us on this side of the Committee were anxious to delay the termination of the Mandate.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I never suggested that those views were held on the other side of the Committee, but I pointed out what would be the effect of voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. I made it clear that it was because it would have the effect of not terminating the Mandate on 15th May that we on this side of the Committee were not prepared to vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Warbey: Yes, and I think we also made it clear on our part that what we were putting down on that occasion was a reasoned Amendment, and not a direct negative. The purpose of the reasoned Amendment was to ask the Government to look at the Bill again and to improve it in certain respects. That, I hope, the Government are going to do during the Committee stage. They have made a very good beginning, and I hope they will follow it, not only by trumping Opposition aces, but also trumping our aces.

Mr. Mikardo: With so much agreement on the Amendment, it ought to be possible to get it through without very much discussion. I rise only, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), to remove any remaining misconception on the question whether we ought to terminate the Mandate not later than 15th May. The intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) during the speech of my hon. Friend did not make the point clear. To suggest that the reasoned Amendment moved on Second Reading was motivated by, or had as its intention, a desire to continue the Mandate longer than 15th May, is not right. The only desire to vary from 15th May, if at all possible, would be to make the date sooner, rather than later. The hon. and learned Member suggested in his intervention that the proper course for us would have been to put down an Amendment which approved the object of the Bill, but state our objections to its form; but it is generally known that an Amendment on Second Reading which does not move the rejection, has extremely little chance of being called. Moreover, supposing our Amendment for rejection had been carried, it would have been possible and easy for His Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill which would still provide for the termination of the Mandate at a date not later than 15th May, but would drop some of the features of the existing Bill to which those who supported that Amendment objected.
11.15 a.m.
We should not be too squeamish about apparent misrepresentation from our opponents. I was not too much perturbed by the apparent misrepresentation —which, in his case, I am sure was quite unconscious—on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, nor was I in the least perturbed by a much more conscious and deliberate misrepresentation to a similar effect in certain less responsible organs of the Press. I would not have risen today but for the fact that, in answering questions on Business last week, the Lord President of the Council, who ought to know better, in reply to a question on today's Business, also appeared to give the impression that he had formed the view that those who moved the rejection of the Bill were doing so with the object of maintaining British rule in Palestine as long as possible. One


does not worry too much about misrepresentation of one's views from the opposite side of the Committee, and certainly one does not worry about misrepresentation in certain organs of the Press, but when we get such misrepresentation from one of our own leaders, the position should be made abundantly clear. I wish to get it clear on the record that those who sought on the Second Reading Debate, and sought honestly, to interpret what was said, will be aware that, whatever was said, there was complete unanimity about the desirability to terminate the Mandate certainly not later than 15th May. Therefore, like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I had not intended to say anything on the Amendment, but the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) have led me to make some observations on this point. I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to take this further opportunity of explaining their course of action on Second Reading. It may be that they feel they did not put their point of view with sufficient force as to enable it to be clearly represented in the Press. As far as I am concerned, while it may be very easy for the hon. Member for Reading to use words such as "gross misrepresentation," and "apparent misrepresentation," may I point out to him that all I did—and what I adhere to—was to point out the effect of voting against the Second Reading? The speeches of the hon. Members are on record, and there is no misrepresentation of what hon. Members who voted against the Second Reading said. I did not misrepresent what they said, but pointed out the effect of the course they intended to pursue.
Therefore, it is quite wrong, and indeed quite unfair, for the hon. Member to accuse me of misrepresentation in any shape or form, and I hope that, in the circumstances, he will withdraw his remark. If he will look at HANSARD, he will see that the position was clearly stated by me and that I was pointing out the effect of voting against the Second Reading. I did not seek to misrepresent what he said, for what he said was well within my own knowledge and in the recollection of the House, and it was quite an unwarrantable suggestion for him to say that

there was any misrepresentation. What I did was to state clearly what the effect would be if the House rejected the Second Reading of the Measure.
So far as the other point is concerned, I must say that I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not even now satisfactorily explained the omission of the date—15th May—in the first place. In his speech on 11th December, he was a little vague about that date. He will remember that the matter was pressed, and the Foreign Secretary made it quite clear that the date would be 15th May. Now, when we have a Bill to carry out the Government's policy and terminate our jurisdiction in Palestine, the one thing omitted from the Bill in its original form is the date. It is clear from the Amendment that it would have been perfectly easy to provide that the Mandate should be given up not later than 15th May and might be given up before that dale. I do not suggest that Parliamentary draftsmen are bad draftsmen, or that the omission of the date was bound to lead to some thoughts that there might be some ulterior reason. Of course, if I were to follow the example of the Lord President, set so recently this week, I could take up quite a little time by commenting on the incompetence of the Government to express their intentions in the Bills they produce, but I do not propose doing that. I am glad that, even at this late moment, the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that this alteration to the Bill will be an improvement.

Major Tufton Beamish: I would like to add a word or two in support of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said concerning the unwarrantable attack upon him by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). I understood that the hon. Member for Reading, when speaking on the Amendment, made it clear to the Committee in his Second Reading speech that was in favour not of the mandate being terminated after 15th May, but rather of its being terminated earlier. If that was in his mind and in the minds of his hon. Friends, how is it that there is no Amendment on the Order Paper to that effect?

Mr. Mikardo: The answer to that is quite simple. My hon. Friends and I did not put down an Amendment to that


effect because we understood my right hon. Friend to say that he would be disposed to accept such an Amendment, and we were expecting to see an Amendment from him which we could support. As it happened, there was an Amendment, not from my right hon. Friend, but from certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to which I and my hon. Friends could agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 1, line 9, to leave out "any," and insert "all."
This is a short point, though I hope we may have an expression of view upon it. The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: does the word "any," in line 9 of the Bill, mean "all," and, if it does, why not say "all"? It is still three letters, and, if we say "any jurisdiction," it seems to me to imply some doubt as to His Majesty having jurisdiction up to 15th May, when I should have thought it was quite clear that His Majesty had that jurisdiction. This would appear to me to be a defect in the drafting, though, of course, of a different nature from the one which has just been put right. I hope the Amendment may be accepted without further ado.

Mr. Creech Jones: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that this Amendment meets with the approval of the Government. I must confess that, to some extent, lay persons like myself rely, perhaps overmuch, for the legal niceties on Parliamentary draftsmen, but, certainly, on a further examination of the words, we see no reason why the word "all" should not be written into the Bill, and we therefore accept the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I think this occasion demands a word from this side of the Committee. It is quite a surprise to us, for we had not expected to get a triumph on this particular Amendment, and I would like to mark the occasion by saying that the score now appears to be "30-love."

Major Beamish: I congratulate the Government on accepting the Amendment, though the Minister, in replying, failed to make one point which is in both his favour and ours, and that is that, not only is the proposed word of the same

length but it has one syllable less. It is quite clear that the word "any" has a different context and meaning.

Mr. Solley: I am sorry in a way that the Government thought fit to accept this Amendment. I think that, in the first instance, the learned draftsman of this Clause probably knew what he was doing when he specifically chose the word "any" instead of "all." I suppose that what he had in mind was that, while no one would dispute the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Palestine, which flows from the Mandate itself, it might be argued that certain aspects of the way in which the Mandate has been operated in Palestine were contrary to international law, and not, therefore, within the jurisdiction of His Majesty. In order, therefore, to meet what might well be a well-founded indictment in international law that many of the things done in the name of His Majesty's Government in Palestine did not flow from the Mandate itself, and were not, therefore, in the jurisdiction of His Majesty, the learned draftsman saw fit to use the word "any" instead of "all." For that reason, I think we should stand by the draftsman's version, which makes it quite clear by implication, that not necessarily all the acts done in the name of His Majesty were done in keeping with the express provisions and the implied provisions of the Mandate.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The next Amendment is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)—in page 1, line 10, leave out "determine," and insert:
be transferred to the United Nations organisation or to any body or bodies appointed by the United Nations organisation for this purpose.

Mr. Janner: May I ask whether it is proposed to call the next Amendment, which stands in my name—in line 10 leave out "determine," and insert:
be transferred to the Palestine Commission of the United Nations or to any other body or bodies appointed by the United Nations to exercise such jurisdiction"—
or whether it would be in Order for both of these Amendments to be discussed at the same time, as they are materially on the same point?

Mr. Pickthorn: To save you trouble, Mr. Beaumont, may I point out that there is a very small, and perhaps not very important, Amendment on the same lines standing in my name—in page 1, line 10, leave out from "determine," to end of line 11. May I ask whether it would be convenient to have a discussion on all three Amendments together?

The Deputy-Chairman: If that is the wish of the Committee, I should be quite agreeable. I would point out to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that I was proposing to call the Amendment in his name, and that may be discussed along with the other. In reply to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Fanner), his Amendment is largely governed by the one now about to be moved, and it can, therefore, be discussed on that Amendment.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "determine," and to insert:
be transferred to the United Nations organisation or to any body or bodies appointed by the United Nations organisation for this purpose.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that when the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government in Palestine ten-minutes, there shall not be a hiatus in the transfer of jurisdiction to another authority, the authority being the United Nations organisation or a body appointed by it. In the Second Reading Debate we dealt with the broad "general question of the policy of His Majesty's Government since the United Nations decision on the partition of Palestine, and particularly the policy and actions during the interim period before and after the termination of the British Mandate. I do not propose to go over that ground again, because this Amendment, while still based upon the same principle that this Government's action should be in conformity with the decision of the United Nations organisation, deals with a narrower, although extremely important, aspect of what is to happen when His Majesty's Government's jurisdiction terminates on 15th May, or such earlier date as may be decided. Is there to be a vacuum after that date or an orderly transfer of jurisdiction to some other Power? That is the essential point which is raised in this Amendment.
I should have thought that this was an Amendment which the Government would be very willing to accept, because it still provides very clearly that British jurisdiction completely terminates. What it also seeks to do is to tidy up—if one can use such a term in connection with Palestine—the political and juridical position as far as the mandatory Power is concerned. We have other responsibilities as a member of the United Nations Organisation, but as the mandatory Power we have very clear responsibilities both in respect of past obligations as a mandatory Power, and in respect of the decisions of the General Assembly on the precise obligations to be carried out, in the termination of our authority in an orderly fashion without leaving chaos behind.
If, in fact, no provision is made for handing over authority to a successor regime, what there will be in Palestine, quite apart from the bloodshed and other things that may happen, is a complete legal and juridical vacuum. During the Second Reading Debate, we heard from the Secretary of State a description of all the things that the Government were doing during this interim period to give various powers to local municipalities. If that is all that is done, what will happen on 15th May, or any other appointed day, will be that in Palestine we shall have a simple dissolution into a number of separate, partial warring communities, with no overall body responsible for law and order and the protection of the citizens. It seems to us that we must, in common decency, in order to see that the best possible comes out of what has happened in Palestine, do our part as cleanly and as distinctly as possible to make provision to hand over to the United Nations organisation.
It may well be that if we lay the baby on the doorstep of the United Nations, the Secretary of State will say that there is no guarantee that the United Nations will pick it up. I will deal with that point in a moment, but I should like to say now that it appears to me to be far better to leave the baby on somebody's doorstep, with a chance of its being picked up, rather than to expose it in the open desert. That is what we should be doing on the appointed day, if no transfer of authority were prepared. It appears to me that there is very good


reason to suppose that the United Nations will, in fact, pick up this baby when it is handed over to them. There is the decision of the General Assembly, and the fact that the United Nations is the successor to the League of Nations, which was the body which conferred the Palestine Mandate upon the Government of this country. It is entirely legitimate—perhaps I should say it is entirely legitimate in international law, although I do not claim to be an international lawyer—when we terminate the Mandate that we should hand over authority and responsibility for law and order and the protection of the citizens to the body which is the successor to that which conferred the Mandate.
I am supported in that view by an important statement which was made by the legal advisers of the Secretary-General of the United Nations about 10 days ago. It was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) during the Second Reading Debate. He referred to it in rather a different context, namely, whether or not the United Nations could establish an international force in order to maintain order in Palestine. This is a statement made by Mr. Trygve Lie's legal advisers:
An international armed force set up to maintain order in Palestine … would have the character of an international police force for maintenance of law and order in a territory for which international society is still responsible.
It is the last sentence to which I draw attention—
… territory for which international society is still responsible.
In the opinion of the legal advisers of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, that means that Palestine is a territory for which the United Nations is responsible. Therefore, it seems to me that there can be no doubt at all about the duty and the legal possibility of the United Nations accepting this transfer of jurisdiction. I urge the Government to accept this Amendment, and carry out this last and final stage of our responsibility in Palestine in the fashion suggested.
I want to remind the Secretary of State, in conclusion, that he has quite rightly, on very many occasions in this House and at Lake Success, tried to compel

other members of the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities in respect of Palestine. I fully accept that some of the other nations in the United Nations Organisation have not played the game on Palestine. They have not lived up to their share of responsibility, but if we try to compel them to accept their responsibility and make the United Nations a living entity, in which every member plays its proper part, let us see to it that we in our actions put the responsibility fairly and clearly where it lies. In this case, the responsibility is the jurisdiction and the maintenance of order and security.

Mr. Janner: I would like, in a sense, to support this Amendment and at the same time to try to explain why the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of other hon. Members was put on the Order Paper. There can be no question at the moment that it would be an intolerable position if we merely left Palestine and took no share at all in handing the jurisdiction of that country over to somebody or other or to some authority or other. It was never intended by the League of Nations that it should be so; it was never intended by the successor to the League of Nations—the United Nations organisation—that it should be so.
I should like to remind the Committee that the Mandate was granted for a specific purpose, and that purpose was the establishment of a Jewish National Home, provided that the civil rights and religious rights of other communities should not be interfered with. It has been stated quite categorically by those who were the founders and who proposed the Mandate that that was the position at the time when the notorious White Paper was brought before this House—and there is certainly no reason at all, one would imagine, that from that date onwards the position was different. I refer the Committee to the very categorical statement made at that time by Mr. Lloyd George.
11.45 a.m.
If the object of the Mandate was what I have stated it was, it is perfectly obvious that to leave Palestine at the present time without handing over to the United Nations Organisation will mean that the original intention of the Mandate is to be to some considerable extent frustrated. That, of course, was readily accepted by those commissions which went


out to Palestine to investigate the position. It was accepted by U.N.S.C.O.P., and on their return they said quite definitely what should be done in Palestine. They sent their recommendations to the Assembly, who came to definite conclusions, and the very latest international statement of standing which we have had on the situation was the one made by the General Assembly. What did they say?
They said:
A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five member states—
this is preparatory to independence being granted—
the members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis geographically and otherwise as possible.
That has been done. The next thing is extremely important; this matter has been considered by the United Nations Assembly and it has been categorically stated what is to be done. We say, as loyal members of the United Nations organisation, we are prepared to abide by the decisions of the United Nations organisation and, consequently, this is what we are supposed to do according to the latest declaration of the United Nations organisation, when the Assembly stated its proposals:
The administration of Palestine shall, as the Mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission—
I do not think even my hon. Friend will need further explanation on that point. It is crystal clear.
—which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly under the guidance of the Security Council. The Mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated. In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue the necessary regulations and take other measures as required. The Mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that U.N.O. should take over, but may I ask whether this House has the right to legislate for U.N.O. and to decide that U.N.O. should take over?

Mr. Janner: Needless to say, both as a Member of this House and a member of the inferior profession, so far as the law is concerned—the humbler profession—I have given this very careful consideration and my answer is this—if I may interrupt the course of my speech for a moment: there was a League of Nations, and the League of Nations was an international body of which we were members. The League of Nations is replaced today by the United Nations Organisation—not entirely or to the fullest extent, but it today the international body. We are members of that international body; indeed, we have stated that we abide by the Charter and that we agree with what the Charter says:
All members in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them.
We were a party to that Charter and agreed to that condition. The next point is paragraph five—I am sure hon. Members are very anxious to get this right:
All members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter.
I think from an international legal point of view there never was a stronger case than that we are bound in this country by the Charter to which we have subscribed and that, in view of the fact that the Asesmbly has made it perfectly and positively clear that it is prepared to deal with the matter in the manner I have outlined, it is our duty to facilitate matters so that we shall be perfectly legally in order in handing over.
I would like now to proceed to what we have said. This is what our representatives have said. As recently as 27th February at Lake Success there was a categorical statement made which endorsed precisely what I am saying, and I am quoting now from "The Times." Our representative said—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which representative?"]—our representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan. According to "The Times" of 28th February this is what he said:
The British Government, in a memorandum to the United Nations Palestine Commission, states that"—
of course, this is only what "The Times" said—
'after May r5th the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine."'


I must add that he did not say that off his own bat; it must have been very carefully considered by the Colonial Secretary; and I am sure that before making a statement of that sort he must have taken the very profound and learned advice of the learned Attorney-General. But that was not all, for it goes on:
It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be a de facto or de jure Government. In any case its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on a resolution of the General Assembly.
The General Assembly has obviously come to a conclusion on this matter in the terms I have already given to the Committee. This article goes further and says:
The British Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority wherewith to make an agreement regarding the transfer of assets of the Government of Palestine.
Well, we cannot play fast and loose with these matters—or we should not. In the first place, it would be a tragic thing to do so after Palestine has been built up as that it has been by those pioneers, who have created—as has so often been stated from all sides of the Committee—a miraculous change in Palestine, and who have produced food, the very thing we are asking the whole world to do at present, who have produced an economic system there which is the admiration particularly of my friends in the Socialist movement. We cannot then say to these people: "Although the United Nations are prepared, as they are, to take over, we are going to leave you, in spite of our obligations, in spite of the compelling force which has been already stated categorically at Lake Success by our representative; we are going to leave you stranded so that the Arabs—or whoever it may be—the bandits, who were our worst enemies in the war—the Mufti, and all the rest of them—shall be able to stir up all this desire for loot amongst the irresponsible Arabs"—I do not refer to the fellaheen, the workers—"in spite of the United Nations desire to prevent it."
That is not the way to deal with this matter. Legally, juridically, there is no alternative for us but to adopt what the sovereign power of the world has declared, with our consent—because we were a party to the Charter—is the course to be adopted. Do not let us make legal

quibbles about the matter, as we tried to do with regard to the White Paper, and say that, because it was only the members of the Mandatory Commission who decided that we had committed an illegal action by stopping immigration, and because there was not time for the thing to go before the whole of the United Nations' Assembly, we do not acknowledge it. Today we know that the Assembly itself says it—the supreme body of the United Nations—and in those circumstances I ask that the Amendment be accepted. I should prefer the words I have suggested, because I should like to place emphasis on the fact that we really are honourable members of the United Nations, and that we abide by what they want done in the matter. When I say "they" I mean "we," because we are part and parcel of it. That is why I use the actual words which have been used in the United Nations for the settlement of this matter.

Mr. Weitzman: I wish to add but a few words on this matter. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, because on logical grounds it is the only thing they can possibly do. The Committee will remember that during Second Reading the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the very forefront of his speech said:
The authority for the administration of Palestine after 25th May will"—
I emphasise those words as an acknowledgment on his part—
in accordance with the United Nations Resolution of 29th November, be the United Nations Palestine Commission.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1246.]
That was a declaration on behalf of the Government. It stated the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. The words at present in the Clause are merely a declaration of a complete cessation of interest. In effect, they mean nothing. If the words were left out completely, it would not carry the matter any further.
If the Government at the forefront of the Second Reading Debate, when introducing this Bill, declare that the position is as I have just read out, surely the logical outcome is that they must take the necessary steps to implement that declaration. During the course of that speech the Secretary of State also said that the


desire of the Government was to tidy up matters so that they would be ready for the incoming tenant. How can matters be tidied up and ready for an incoming tenant when there is merely a declaration that things are at an end, and it is left there? I desire only to add those few words from the point of view of logic. If it is desired to tidy up matters, and to carry them out properly, surely this Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government as recognising the position they themselves put forward, and as putting on record that they will take the necessary steps to see that their powers are transferred to the authority they recognise.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Crawley.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. I understand that my hon. Friend is proposing to speak on a matter dealing with Palestine. Until very recently, and during all the period when these matters were being threshed out in the Department, he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Colonial Secretary. It has always been the custom in this Committee that hon. Members in that position do not take part in Debates affecting the Department. If there is to be a Government reply to this Amendment, perhaps it had better come from the Front Bench, rather than from the second bench.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order, neither is it subject to a Ruling from the Chair. All Members are entitled to speak when called upon by the Chair.

Mr. Crawley: I would point out that I resigned from the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary at the very beginning of this year, and I can see no reason whatever why I should not make my observations on a matter which has not merely been going on for the last two years, but which has been of public concern for 20 years, and is likely to be so for some further time.
I hope very much that the Government will not accept this Amendment, for two very simple reasons. It seems to me that if the Amendment were accepted it would be very likely that we should not, in fact, be able to withdraw from Palestine at all. What the Amendment says is that we shall relinquish our jurisdiction only if we

can transfer it to some organisation, either of the United Nations or appointed by the United Nations. The implication arising from that is quite obvious; if at the time we are to hand over there is no organisation in being, then we might very easily be put in the position of having to stay on.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: We can have only one hon. Member on his feet and speaking at any one time.

Mr. Warbey: Surely my hon. Friend is not really suggesting that the United Nations is not in being? That is what he appeared to suggest. It very clearly is in being, and that is the body to which the transfer of jurisdiction is proposed to be made.

Mr. Janner: Before my hon. Friend replies to that, may I ask him——

Mr. Crawley: No. Let me just develop my point. The point is quite clear. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the United Nations appointed a Commission which was to take over jurisdiction from His Majesty's Government in Palestine. Recently, that Commission has equally made it clear to the Security Council that unless certain conditions can be fulfilled, it will not be prepared to take over in Palestine.

Mr. S. Silverman: When did it say that?

Mr. Crawley: Quite recently.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Member quote his authority?

Mr. Crawley: It is quite well known.

Mr. Janner: Would my hon. Friend allow me——

Mr. Crawley: No. Do let me make my point. The Commission has made a statement publicly to the Security Council—I think within the last five weeks. It may be that at the time we are to withdraw, there will be no effective body under the United Nations which can take over in Palestine, and that is what underlies this discussion.

12 noon.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in my name which deals with this very point. I am


wondering if you, Mr. Beaumont, would be prepared to allow us to discuss that Amendment at this stage.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be undesirable and impracticable to include other Amendments in addition to those we are already discussing.

Mr. Crawley: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) suggested that we must try and encourage the United Nations to take up the threads. I suggest to him if this Amendment were accepted, it would be arguable whether we should go out of Palestine, unless there was some organisation under the United Nations to take over. Far from encouraging the United Nations to take over, it would lead the world to believe that Great Britain might, as so many nations are hoping, continue to stay there. Therefore, I think that this Amendment would defeat the whole object of the Bill, and would make it impossible for Britain to leave Palestine at all. It would be disastrous for the Government to accept it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I was hoping that before now, we might have had some indication from the Government as to what is their attitude towards this most important Amendment. I rise at this stage because I have given up hope, unless more is said, that the Government will endeavour to make their position any plainer to the world than they have done so far. I asked the Colonial Secretary, in the course of the Second Reading Debate, Whether he would tell us, when the Government said at the United Nations Assembly at Lake Success that although this country would do nothing to implement, alone or in association with others, the United Nations decision, it would nevertheless accept it, what they meant by "accept." I hope that I am not making too great a demand upon the resources of the Government, or embarrassing them more than is necessary in the circumstances, if I say that the world is entitled to know what they meant. What does "accept" mean? Does it mean ignore? Does it mean obstruct? Does it mean placing every conceivable legal and juridical obstacle in the way? That is what we are doing in this Bill. In the absence of any explanation from the Government on this Amendment,

that is what the world will say we are doing.
The Amendment does nothing more than give legal and juridical recognition to what the Government themselves regard as the de facto situation. If I am wrong about that, I hope that I shall be interrupted and told, so that I do not waste the time of the Committee in pursuing false points. Is that the position? Do we accept the decision of the United Nations? If this Amendment were accepted by the Government and embodied in the Bill, would it do anything more than—I think the Government ought to answer this point—give recognition in this Bill to what they have agreed to be the de facto situation in international law?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has quoted what Sir Alexander Cadogan told the Security Council quite recently. Was he telling them the truth? Was he speaking with the authority of the Government, and do they accept all he said? Surely we are entitled to know that. I know that Sir Alexander Cadogan is in a very difficult position indeed we are, for the same reason. It is only in quite recent times that we have appointed civil servants to be heads of political delegations. I have always thought that to be a very embarrassing, irregular and slightly improper practice. Surely, if someone is to make a statement of policy to the Security Council or to the Assembly, or to any gathering of international statesmen, it should be someone who is responsible to the House of Commons for what he says; it should be someone whom we can criticise without feeling that we are doing something unfair or improper because he cannot answer for himself. That is why it makes it such an embarrassing situation. But I did not create that situation. The Government asked Sir Alexander Cadogan to lead their delegation.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is out of Order. His remarks have nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Silverman: I feel sure that there must be a misunderstanding. We are dealing with what is the de facto situation in Palestine under this Bill, with or without the Amendment. It has been declared that when we leave Palestine the United


Nations will be the de facto Government of that country. If His Majesty's Government accept that as a statement of their policy, I should be right in arguing that this Amendment does no more than give statutory recognition to the de facto situation. If I am wrong in thinking that that is the Government's policy, that argument will not hold water, and I will proceed with the rest of my argument. Therefore, I say, with respect and with some confidence, that it is vitally relevant to this argument to know whether the Government do or do not accept the view that when we leave, however we leave and whether we pass this Amendment or not, that the United Nations will be the de facto Government or de jure Government of Palestine.

The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. Member has said is quite correct, and he now is quite in Order. It was not in Order, however, to discuss who shall lead a delegation, or why a certain person shall lead a delegation.

Mr. Silverman: I fully appreciate that. That was only a passing reference. While it is something which should be discussed at some time, this is not the occasion to do it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not desire it to form the basis of discussion, or for other hon. Members to deal with the same point.

Mr. Silverman: I want to know from the Government whether the declaration, whoever made it, was made with their authority, and whether they now accept it. I think that the Security Council, the United Nations and this Committee are entitled to know the answer to that question. I will assume, unless it is contradicted, that the Government accept that; nobody has denied it yet. I assume, therefore, that the de facto position is that if we pass this Bill, with or without this Amendment, there will be a Government in Palestine, that it will be the Government of the United Nations, and that His Majesty's Government will recognise that Government. If that is right, it completely destroys the validity of the point which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley), whom I tried to prevent from speaking.

Mr. Austin: Quite wrongly.

Mr. Silverman: Would it be modest of me to say that I am among the last persons in the House who would have the right to prevent any other Member from expressing his view? I thought, however, that the view of my hon. Friend was as much embarrassing to him as to everybody else, but if he feels that it was not, I withdraw any objection. I say that if the declaration is made on behalf of the Government that when we go the Government of Palestine will be the United Nations—if His Majesty's Government accept that—the reason which my hon. Friend advanced for not accepting this Amendment, will not be a good reason.

Mr. Leslie: Will there be any reason for accepting the Amendment if the Government have accepted the position which the hon. Member now puts forward?

Mr. Silverman: If that were so, is it a wrong method of argument for me to ask my hon. Friend what possible reason could they have for not accepting it? Why not? I press this, because if it were accepted and added to the Bill, the point would be clear, in municipal and international law, that that is the Government, and that we recognise that Government.

Mr. Solley: It would be a solemn declaration of policy by way of statute, and there could be no exception to that, if that is our policy?

Mr. Silverman: That is an admirable way of putting it, but perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I prefer my own, and say that all the Amendment is really seeking to do is to give legislative recognition and sanction to the position which the Government hold to be the case. But it would do a little more than that; that would be a purely formal thing. I would welcome it even as a formal thing, but it would be a little more. I said, in my Second Reading speech, that one of the things which led me to vote for the reasoned Amendment against it was flat, so far as this Bill is concerned, there might never have been a League of Nations, a Mandate, a United Nations' organisation, an Assembly, a Council, a Commission, or the handing back of an international trust to the international body which conferred that trust. There is no mention in the Bill, from first to last, of the recognition that there is any inter-


national authority in this matter at all—not one word.
I should have thought that if, without altering the legal position—and my whole argument so far has proceeded on that assumption—you make a declaration to the world that you are not merely running away and leaving anarchy and chaos behind you of deliberate and set purpose, but are taking the logical and responsible consequences of having handed over your trust——

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. I wonder, since the charge has been made that somebody is running away, whether the hon. Gentleman will indicate exactly who is meant by "you"—His Majesty's Government, the British Army, or what?

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not referring to me, because I can assure him that I am not running away.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: This kind of interruption has been made before. I apologise, Mr. Beaumont, for appearing to suggest that you, on this occasion, or Mr. Speaker, on the Second Reading, could possibly be running away from anything. If I said anything to indicate any such thing, I will withdraw it at once, and offer my fullest apologies to you and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who seems to be so worried about it. I understand that the greater part of the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Second Reading Debate was that Great Britain, and the Governments of Great Britain which he supported between 1917 and 1939, had done even more than run away—that their whole policy in this matter was bogus. That was the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading, and I think perhaps he might leave it there for the time being and let me continue. No doubt he can state his own point of view when his turn comes.
The people who are running away in this matter are, I suggest, this House, Great Britain, this country and this Government. They would simply be running away if they did nothing whatever to recognise that, although they have a perfect right—and I think they are right in doing it—to hand over the Mandate, to come out of Palestine at the earliest

possible moment, to hand over the whole of their authority and jurisdiction in Palestine at the earliest possible moment, and withdraw every British soldier as soon as ever he can be withdrawn—which is the only policy for this country now to pursue—they were leaving nothing behind; that they were running away and deliberately and, of set purpose, creating anarchy and chaos. If there is nothing in the Bill to give legal and legislative sanction and authority to what is recognised to be the de facto position, they are advertising to all the world that that is their intention.
I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I see no reason why they should not. A reluctance to do it, a refusal to do it, would be dishonourable and a most disgraceful thing. I say that with due deliberation, and a full sense of responsibility. I do not know what historians will say about the first British Socialist Government with an overwhelming majority in this House. In a great many things, I hope and belive that historians will regard this Government as the very best Government this country has ever had, and I am sure that in a great many, certainly not all, of their international activities they will win great praise. In the many things that they have done and left undone I feel sure it will be said that mistakes were made. I do not know, but all I would say is that in this matter, and in this matter alone, future historians of British Socialism will feel ashamed.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should like to agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), if I might, on one or two points. I agree with him, and respectfully also with you, Mr. Beaumont also, that the inadvisability of having political decisions made or even declared by civil servants, and all that is clear and is not a matter for discussion now. I agree with the hon. Member also, he may be a little more surprised to know, about the undesirability, and even it may be the disgracefulness of leaving a territory and a population for which a Government have been responsible without making sure beforehand that there will be someone else effective to continue the duties of government.
I wholly agree about that. Those of us who were against Zionism from the


first, who always thought political Zionism one of the mistakes of human history, who always opposed it, are, I think, not very justly, continually accused of running away from that responsibility. We would be the last to enjoy the misfortunes which have now fallen upon our country, upon that country, upon Zionists and upon Arabs; but the pressing for the fixing of 15th May by those of us who take that view was not done because we thought that we ought to get out and leave nothing else behind, but because it seemed to us plain that both parties in this House and in Palestine, and indeed more than two in this House, and more than two in Palestine, all effective parties, had made it quite clear that it was not going to be possible any longer to continue British administration; and we thought that once that had become absolutely clear, the only thing to do was to fix a date, and the earliest possible date.
The responsibility to arrange for some effective alternative to come in at midnight on 15th May was not upon those of us who took that line. The responsibility was those who took the line which made it impossible for British administration to go on, to arrange that before their own line because effective, it should be possible either for the British Government or for some other authority to arrange for the replacement of the vacuum found to be left when the position of the British Government was made impossible. I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, or in the mouth of anybody who has taken a strongly Zionist line at any stage, to reproach those of us who now want to see the thing ended on 15th May, but who admit that we have not arranged, and we clearly cannot now arrange, in the five weeks or whatever time is left, for the filling of the vacuum that will thus be left.
On the point about His Majesty's Government having declared at Lake Success that upon 16th May the government will be the Palestine Commission, I would respectfully suggest that that is not really a declaration in the ordinary political or legal sense. It could not be more than a prophecy, because what the United Nations or the Palestine Commission will do is not one of the things for which His Majesty's Government are responsible.
I know that this Amendment is in Order, otherwise it would not have been called, but I am bound to say that when I saw it on the Order Paper I found some little difficulty in seeing how it could be in Order. I can just see how it could be in Order for the Crown in Parliament to legislate that the Crown shall cease to exercise a jurisdiction, but I do not quite see even there, and that is the point of my Amendment, in line 10, to leave out from "determine" to the end of line 11, which I have put down as an exploratory endeavour to find how the Crown in Parliament can legislate that its Mandate shall come to an end, that is, its duties to some authority which is, in some sense or other, higher. I do not see how that can be done. I find it even more difficult to see how the Crown in Parliament can legislate that something or other shall, as from such and such a date, be done by somebody who is and always was outside the jurisdiction of the Crown in Parliament. I really have not yet understood how it is supposed that that could be made effective either under the Bill or by this Amendment.

Mr. Warbey: I think that the hon. Member has really mistaken the purpose of this Amendment. It is not an attempt to tell the United Nations what it shall do. All it is saying is that His Majesty's Government shall do something, namely, hand over its jurisdiction to a successor authority.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am afraid I am not more enlightened than I was. If I may use the metaphor which I think the hon. Member himself used, am I now to understand that when he leaves a baby on my doorstep he is suggesting that I shall do nothing to the baby? That seems to be almost a slanderous reflection on my humanity.

Mr. Janner: If the hon. Member was prepared to accept the baby, as the Assembly is prepared to accept it, everything would be perfectly in order.

Mr. Pickthorn: If the Assembly is going to take on this duty, is prepared to do so and has made it plain that it is prepared to do so, the hon. Members who support this Amendment have what they want. I cannot see how any vote of this House or the other House can affect this matter at all.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose——

Mr. Pickthorn: Oh, dear.

Mr. Silverman: I suggest to the hon. Member, with respect, that the fallacy of his argument lies in his original assumption, namely that what was said recently at Lake Success about the authority that would take over after we go was a prophecy and not a declaration I suggest to him that it was a declaration and not a prophecy, and that it must be a matter for the Government to decide what government, if any, they will recognise in Palestine or any other country.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member has now made his speech twice, and I shall have to begin mine again. The point I was trying to put was: I see how His Majesty's Government can make a declaration on the matter of what is to be their policy next week; they do so in matters of currency and economic policy about every 3½ weeks; but they cannot make a declaration about what shall be the policy of U.N.O. in this respect. I do not see that what Sir Alexander Cadogan said at Lake Success can be binding on the United Nations or on their Commission. Still less do I see how, if in any sense it were binding, it could be made more binding by this Amendment.
I should like also to ask for help from the Attorney-General on the point put by almost all the hon. Gentlemen who spoke before me, about the United Nations being the successor to the League of Nations. I believe that to be a fallacy. I do not believe the United Nations to be in any sense a successor to the League of Nations. We ought to have that made quite plain. Nor do I think it fair that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), I think it was, should talk about the "notorious" White Paper, especially after he had told us that the purpose of the Mandate was to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. I thought that was very revealing—"the purpose of the Mandate." This was a particular kind of Mandate, which was not a particularly numerous kind of Mandate. All the Mandates had the general purpose of leading the territories concerned to self-government. Of this particular kind of Mandate—I always forget which was A. and which was B.—it was also the purpose that that should be done very quickly. Those populations were distinguished from, for instance, Negro or negroid populations in Central Africa.
To suggest that the sole purpose or the main purpose or even a full half of the purpose of the Mandate was the establishment—and though this was not stated it was suggested—the establishment of a Jewish National State in Palestine, is really not fair at all.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Janner: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman again——

Mr. Pickthorn: This is the last time.

Mr. Janner: I want to convince the hon. Gentleman by reading a portion of the preamble which definitely says that:
Whereas the principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory shall be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
That is the recital, and the important recital, which is contained in the Mandate.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is not a declaration that "The" purpose of the Mandate was to establish a Jewish National Home. I cannot go on making this speech over and over again, but there is the general purpose of the Mandate, and the particular purpose of this particular sort of Mandate, which overrules any specific and partial purpose for this particular mandatory territory.
One other thing I want to say on this, and that is with regard to the Amendment which I put down in line 10 to leave out from "determined" to the end of line if. I am half apologetic to the Committee about this—I am not sure it is not a false point, and I shall accept that it is a false point if the Attorney-General or the Minister tells me so—but I do not see what difference would be made by leaving out those words. We have had a series of extraordinary uses of the word "responsibility" in the discussion this morning, and I do not quite see what the word "responsibility" means here; I do not quite see how this House can legislate that His Majesty shall cease to be responsible to the League of Nations, or whatever metaphysical successor, there is of whoever is supposed to have granted the Mandate. I think we should have


some explanation of that last line and a half of Subsection (1) before we accept it, and it is for that purpose, and with your permission, Mr. Beaumont, that I shall move the deletion of those words at the appropriate time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have been discussing this series of Amendments for over an hour, and from both sides of the Committee have come requests for information from the Government on the points raised. I think it is really deplorable, if we are to proceed and to conclude the Committee stage today, that there should not have been any Government intervention before now. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies desires to make a statement now, I will willingly give way and reserve my remarks—in fact, I should much rather do that, because they might be shorter after he had concluded his speech.

Mr. Creech Jones: I think the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman are quite unfair and uncalled for. I understood at the beginning of the discussion on this particular group of Amendments that at least three points of view were to be expressed, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and that of the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It is only now that we have had the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University informing us as to the purpose and desire involved in his Amendment. Obviously, it is my duty to wait and listen to the case put forward before I reply to the discussion. There is no discourtesy to the Committee involved. If an Amendment is moved, one obviously wants to know what is in the mind of the person moving it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have ignored the request made to him by his own side to intervene at an earlier stage to deal with the Amendments under discussion. I cannot but think, bearing in mind that he is permitted to speak more than once on the Committee stage, that the Debate on the Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite might have taken a much shorter course had he intervened earlier. I do not think that my observation was in the least unfair. I was putting

forward some kind of plea that we might make quicker progress with this Measure.
I speak without any knowledge of what the Government are going to ay in answer to the important points that have been raised on this part of the Bill. Is it not clear from the resolution of the United Nations, in conformity with which the Mandate is being terminated, that, on its termination, the right to exercise jurisdiction over Palestine passes automatically to the United Nations——

Mr. Janner: To the Commission.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: —to the Commission because the United Nations says it shall go to the Commission, but it passes automatically from Great Britain to the Commission through the United Nations. If that is the automatic result of the termination of the Mandate, then I must say that it appears to me to be quite unnecessary to put these words into the Bill, because that would be the inevitable conclusion of the Government. I hope the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whoever is going to reply, will, when he speaks on this Amendment, say whether or no- that is the case. That point ought to be made absolutely and patently clear.
It seems to me that, in the absence of the United Nations getting the reversion on our giving up the Mandate, we in this House do not have it within our power to transfer to the United Nations the right to exercise jurisdiction over Palestine. I very carefully use the words "right to exercise jurisdiction" because, of course, it is one thing to have the right to exercise jurisdiction, and another to be able to exercise it. In some of the speeches to which I have listened this morning, it seemed that there was a little merging of the two questions—the right and the power to exercise jurisdiction.
I believe that from whatever side of the House we come, and whatever our views may be on the Zionist and Arab problems in Palestine, we are deeply concerned with what will happen on and after 15th May. We deplore the fact, and it appears likely to be the fact—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) put it as high as that it would be the fact—that, after that date, there will be no Power exercising jurisdiction over the whole of Palestine. I must say that from what one can see in the papers


as to happenings on the other side of the water, it seems to be highly probable that such will be the case. Indeed, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman went a very long way to confirm that view. If that is the case, it should be made clear beyond all question that the responsibility for that situation does not rest with this country, but with the United Nations, and, particularly, upon those who voted 'for, and were instrumental in securing support for, the scheme to be adopted in Palestine.
If there is, in fact, no exercise of jurisdiction after 15th May, it must follow that there will really be no law and order being administered or maintained over the whole of Palestine, and that the only authority which will be recognised will be the authority of force, the law of the gun. As far as I can recollect, this is a situation—our giving up our Mandate and leaving a void with no one seeking, or, indeed, able to preserve law and order—without precedent in modern times. I think that was in the minds of many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee when making their speeches today. I should think that it is much more important to get clear in one's mind whether the right to jurisdiction goes to the United Nations automatically, and that we should consider, quite apart from that, what will happen in Palestine after 15th May. So far as I can see, the situation which is likely to arise there is not the fault of this country, although we must all greatly deplore it. We must take every opportunity that is available of trying to avoid it.
I should like to say one word with regard to the jurisdiction. We are all agreed that the Mandate should be given up at once, and not piecemeal. I do not think any one dissents from that view. After that will come the stage of the withdrawal of British troops, between 15th May and 1st August. In their recommendations the United Nations seem to contemplate a transfer to the Commission, which may or may not be in Palestine, of the parts from which our troops have withdrawn. The Minister of State, dealt with this point on Second Reading, after the Attorney-General had made it clear that subsequent to 15th May, and apart from the right of the British to exercise jurisdiction over areas where our troops will be in occupation for the purpose of protecting

our troops, and effecting their withdrawal, the United Nations Commission would have the right to exercise jurisdiction throughout those areas as well——

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Assuming they were there.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes, assuming they were there, but the technical right would rest with them. Whether they could exercise it or not would depend upon their presence.

The Attorney-General: I do not think I would say that. Their technical right would depend upon their presence. Their legal sovereignty would depend on their sovereignty in fact.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am very grateful to the Attorney-General. I thought that legal sovereignty would automatically revert to them upon our giving up the Mandate to the Commission. We need some further clarification upon that point. The point I was coming to was that the Minister of State made a statement on Second Reading when he was dealing with
the point concerning our Forces, and our personnel of all kinds being responsible in the last stages of the withdrawal to two sets of laws.
He said then:
I am sure that it would be desirable, if possible, to avoid that, but I am assured it is by no means unusual and it has, in fact, happened quite recently in various areas which we have been occupying or where we have been discharging a role."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1354.]
We may have been doing this in a number of other areas, but I think there has not been an area in which conditions have been similar to those which exist in Palestine at the present time. The Minister of State is right in saying that it would be desirable for us to avoid the overlapping of jurisdictions during the period of our withdrawal.
When the Government reply to the Debate on the Amendment, I hope they will be able to inform us to what extent discussions are proceeding at the present time to avoid that overlapping and to secure that between 15th May and 1st August there is a transfer of authority to the United Nations Commission over the areas the British occupy. I hope they will be able to give us some assurance that the hopes of an effective force for


the maintenance of law and order after that date have increased. I hope I have not taken too long in discussing these points, which appear to me to be of considerable importance. We have had a useful discussion, but I do not feel that the Amendment would add anything to the Bill. Indeed, it might lead to a great deal of confusion with regard to our obligations and our duties after 15th May.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope I may deal first with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and supported by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). From the declarations which have been made from time to time on behalf of His Majesty's Government there is little disagreement with the spirit of the Amendment. We have made it clear that, with the termination of the Mandate, the recognised international authority in the world should assume responsibility for jurisdiction in Palestine. We drew our authority under the Mandate, which is an international instrument, from an international authority. Because of our inability to give satisfaction in regard to the working of that Mandate and for other practical reasons we have gone back to the United Nations, the successor body in the international sphere which is assuming responsibility in regard to trusteeship areas, as declared by all the nations who formed part of the League of Nations at the last meeting which the League of Nations itself held.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I will not interrupt him as often as I was interrupted. I am sorry that the Attorney-General is no longer here. I understood when I requested an indication if I was wrong, that he agreed that the United Nations was not the successor to the League of Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Attorney-General is here now."] I am very glad he has come back. I understand that he agreed to that proposition, but now the Secretary of State has stated that it is the successor.

Mr. Creech Jones: No. I did not. Legally it may not be, but for all practical purposes it is the one international authority in the world which is taking on many of the liabilities and responsibilities which were formerly held under the

League of Nations. They were settled by agreement among the nations who formed part of the League of Nations and who are now forming part of the United Nations.

Mr. Pickthorn: Do they include the Palestinian Arabs?

Mr. Creech Jones: In all our declarations we have assumed that the United Nations would be the responsible authority to whom our power in Palestine would be transferred. That position has been accepted by the declaration of the United Nations of 29th November. The Palestine Commission appointed by the United Nations has been in discussion with us in regard to the transfer of authority. There is no doubt in our minds whatsoever that the United Nations will assume, or does intend to assume, responsibility when 15th May comes and the Mandate is terminated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Could the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than that? He said that there was no doubt in the minds of the Government that the United Nations intended to assume responsibility. Could he not be a little bit more precise? Is it not the case that when we give up our Mandate the right to exercise jurisdiction vests in the United Nations?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter of very great difficulty in international law. It is a matter on which there is room for two opinions, and I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of that aspect of the matter. I want to make it clear that after 15th May His Majesty's Government hope and trust that the administration of affairs in Palestine will repose in the authority of the United Nations.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot feet that the right hon. Gentleman is making this very clear—certainly not to me. I would not expect him to give rulings on difficult points of international law—obviously not—but can he tell us where the de facto authority resides, if anywhere, on 16th May?

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman say quite definitely whether we are one of the members of the United Nations, whether we subscribe to the United Nations organisation and its Charter, and whether we accepted, as part and parcel of the United Nations, what we have stated with them is to be the position?

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Secretary of State aware that there was a report about Lake Success on 20th February in which the following statement was made as part of a memorandum by the representatives of the British Government to the United Nations Palestine Commission:
The British Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority wherewith to make an agreement regarding the transfer of assets of the government of Palestine.

Mr. Creech Jones: That is the position which I have been trying to state. All our discussions and negotiations since the declaration of 29th November have been with the Palestine Commission——

Mr. S. Silverman: On what legal basis?

Mr. Creech Jones: As to the position in Palestine on 16th May, I think it is very difficult for anybody to foresee it. I think it is recognised that the difficulties confronting the Palestine Commission itself are formidable, and the Security Council, which is to advise the Palestine Commission, is only at this moment discussing how the difficulties of the Commission can be overcome. In those circumstances it is quite impossible for anyone to foresee what will happen after 15th May——

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the House be in order for the incoming tenant.

Mr. Creech Jones: All we hope is that the United Nations will be in position, and both in Palestine and at Lake Success we have done all in our power to make it possible for the orderly transfer of administration and authority to take place——

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: To the United Nations?

Mr. Creech Jones: To the Palestine Commission of the United Nations. There are very real difficulties in putting into an Act of Parliament a statement that the United Nations itself will take over jurisdiction. We can only make a unilateral declaration of intention. So far as we are concerned, we terminate the Mandate, and the words in the Clause ought not to be compromised to make us terminate it in a particular way. Therefore, while we pay full tribute to the intention of those who have put forward the Amendment, and while we ourselves have pursued

a policy in harmony with the decision of 29th November, we cannot declare that the United Nations will take over for us, because that is a matter which can only be decided by themselves at the appropriate moment.

Mr. Warbey: I recognise that we cannot legislate for the United Nations organisation to do something, but can we make it clear, not only by official statements but also in the statute, that at midnight on the appointed day we recognise the United Nations organisation as the body legally entitled to exercise authority in the government of Palestine?

Mr. Creech Jones: The purpose of this Bill is a very restricted one. It is to terminate our jurisdiction under the Mandate on a particular date. This is not the occasion for a declaration as to the future government of Palestine or as to the recognition which we will give to that government. We have on numerous occasions made our own position perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity about it. We are definitely negotiating at the present time with the Palestine Commission for the transfer of authority, and all we can hope is that the United Nations will be in a position on 15th May to take of the responsibility in Palestine.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to assist him in this regard? If that is his view, would he be prepared to say that instead of using the word "transfer" we should use the word "surrender"? Then there is no positive obligation upon us. We just hand it over; we surrender it to the United Nations.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Mandate is terminated. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) complained that there is no reference in the Bill to international authority, but he will discover that in Clause r we make it clear that what we are doing is to lay down the Mandate in respect of Palestine which was accepted by His Majesty on behalf of the League of Nations. Therefore, the only task now left to us is to transfer liabilities and assets, to discuss the future responsibilities which the United Nations Commission will take over and to express in the most emphatic language that the Mandate is terminated on 15th May and that our


responsibility in regard to jurisdiction comes to an end.
It is for those reasons that we are obliged to resist the Amendment. It has been suggested that we might concede the alternative proposal that the transfer should be, if not to the United Nations, to any other body or bodies appointed by the United Nations to exercise such jurisdiction, but here again the intention and policy of the Government have been made perfectly clear. We have said that, with the termination of the Mandate, it is the United Nations itself which must assume responsibility. We are not surrendering authority or transferring power to any group of bodies or any other organisation except the United Nations. That part of the Amendment is therefore completely unacceptable. Further, it is proposed that the word "determine" should be eliminated from the Clause. In our judgment, that would be a most fatal Amendment, because we must make our purpose abundantly clear that on the date of the termination of the Mandate our jurisdiction definitely comes to an end——

Mr. Janner: If the right hon. Gentleman would look a little lower down the Order Paper he would see that there is a consequential Amendment which would make the position absolutely and abundantly clear.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: That consequential Amendment contains words which I have just pointed out are quite contrary to the policy for which we as a Government have declared. We are not transferring jurisdiction to other than the United Nations.
It is because we ourselves cannot unilaterally invest this authority in the United Nations that we must resist the Amendment. I hope that in the circumstances the Committee will accept our good faith, that we shall do our utmost to work in the fullest harmony with the United Nations. We do not want to see a vacuum, we do not want to see chaos overtaking Palestine, and all our power will be directed, not only to an orderly transfer, but to creating those conditions after 15th May in which law and order and the maintenance of good Government can become possible. But, if there is a breakdown, I wish to say most emphatically

that over a long period we have been warning the United Nations of the approaching date of 15th May, that there was a great deal of work to be done before authority could be assumed by the United Nations, and that therefore it was imperative in all the discussion that there should be no time wasted at all, but that responsible authorities should come to grips with their problems. We have done all in our power by initiating discussions in the negotiations of the United Nations Commission to speed up the conclusion for this matter.
If it should happen that on 15th May the United Nations are not in a position to send their Commission to Palestine and take up jurisdiction, responsibility must not be laid at the door of the United Kingdom Government. We have done everything in our power to expedite action by the United Nations and it is with the United Nations that responsibility must rest——

Mr. S. Silverman: Responsibility to whom?

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope the Committee will reject the Amendments put forward by my hon. Friends the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and for West Leicester (Mr. Janner).

Mr. Pickthorn: May I have a word in reply to my Amendment?

Mr. Creech Jones: I must confess we were in some doubt as to the intention of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). We have been advised that it was desirable that these lines should be included in the Bill. Our legal advisers felt we should make it clear that…
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall cease to be responsible for the Government of Palestine
and that these lines should be written in the Measure itself. They are inserted on the advice of our legal people as making the Clause much more water-tight than it would otherwise be.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry, but this will not do. Once before there was a great official who washed his hands of a great matter in Palestine. This seems to be washing the hands with quite invisible soap and non-existent water. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know


what would be the effect of leaving out the words, I do not see how he can press for the retention of the words. What would be the effect of that. My Amendment is very simple; it is to leave out 11 or 12 words. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know what the effect would be, that his legal advisers were unable to tell him, and that therefore the words ought to stay in. That seems to me the most extraordinary piece of argumentation. Upon what I suppose one should call his argument, I ask to whom His Majesty's Government are to cease to be responsible to us? It cannot be necessary to say that, if the whole purpose and object of the Bill is to make it plain that His Majesty's Government in every sense are getting out and disinteresting themselves from Palestine. That is the whole object of the Bill from its short Title and long Title and each Clause. It should be unnecessary to say that the Treasury Bench shall cease to be responsible to its back benches. If that is what it means, more than ever the words should be omitted, and if it does not mean that, we should be told what it means.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member for Cambridge University has rather a habit of caricaturing statements made from the Treasury Bench——

Mr. Pickthorn: It is unnecessary.

Mr. Creech Jones: I expected that retort. I wish to point out that this is not the first time words such as these have come into an Act of Parliament designed to transfer authority. Those words were included in the Ceylon Bill, the Burma Bill and the Bill relating to India.

Mr. Pickthorn: All by this Government.

Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly, all by this Government, because no other Government has been responsible for the transfer of authority. The responsibility is obviously on this Government. They are in common form with legislation of this kind, and I think it must be admitted that we have no precedent in a very difficult field of international law, and it is, in the judgment of our legal advisers, desirable that these words should remain in.

Mr. Austin: My hon. Friends put so many reasonable arguments forward earlier in support of the Amendment that

I had not intended troubling the Committee, but the lame and lamentable speech we have heard from the Secretary of State for the Colonies is the reason for my intervention. At one time I had a great regard for him, and I still have a great regard for him, but it is overwhelmed today by a great feeling of sympathy for him because he is obviously the victim of the greatest campaign of trickery, intrigue and deceit that any Colonial Office has had to be subject to, and he is in difficulty in explaining away the attitude of the Government when he knows in his own heart that the Government, on this question of Palestine, are completely in the wrong.
What did my right hon. Friend say at the end of his speech? He said that if there is chaos after 15th May, if there is disorder, if there is bloodshed, the sole responsibility for that will rest on the United Nations. It would be very easy to use abusive terms in commenting on what he said. I do not want to do that, but it is pathetic to have a Minister of the Crown make statements of that kind when he knows, and the whole Front Bench—which includes the Minister of State—knows, that our Government have prevented and frustrated the United Nations Commission in its efforts to reach Palestine. May I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) whose accusations were not refuted when he made them? He said on the question of the Palestine Commission and British authorities:
They refused to allow the Palestine Commission to go to Palestine, even when the Palestine Commission urgently requested them to do so, and there is no doubt at all about the attitude of the Palestine Commission upon this question in its first report to the Security Council. The Commission said:
'The Commission does not find satisfactory the suggestion that the Commission should not go to Palestine until approximately a fortnight before the termination of the Mandate.'
That means that even at this moment the Government are adamant in their outlook that the United Nations Commission are not to go to Palestine before 1st May. It is difficult to reconcile that viewpoint and instruction with the attitude of the Colonial Secretary just now.
We all want our troops home at once if possible; therefore, may I advance a further argument why the Amendment should be accepted? The hon. Member


for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) said that he would oppose the Amendment because it would mean that British lives and property would be endangered after 15th May. Conversely, I am supporting the Amendment because I believe British lives and property will be in danger if the Amendment is not accepted. The Committee will remember the gasp of derision that went up when the Colonial Secretary talked about the authority being handed over to the incoming tenants and said, in his Second Reading speech on 10th March:
It is possible that the Palestine Commission of United Nations may find itself unable to proceed to Palestine because suitable arrangements have not been made, either by the Security Council or by other organs of the United Nations, for it to take up its duties there.
He had his tongue in his cheek, knowing that he and the Government had refused to allow the Commission to go to Palestine. Then, after the intervention of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who asked what would be the effective authority after the 15th, the Colonial Secretary said:
Obviously, if the Commission is unable to take up its duties, we shall be confronted with a different and new situation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, cc. 1258 and 1307.]
This is the point that will affect British lives and property after 15th May. What is the new situation that will confront this Government and our Forces in Palestine? I think the Government will have to maintain their control over the administration of Palestine and will be involved in bloodshed and fighting both with the Arabs and the Jews, or else they will withdraw our troops into compounds and try to steer clear of bloodshed and disorder, and then these compounds will be assailed by hosts of refugees from either side clamouring for admission and demanding sanctuary. Our troops are bound to be involved, however we may look at it, and if only for that reason, I shall certainly go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment if it is taken to a Division.

Mr. Mikardo: We waited quite a long while for the Colonial Secretary to intervene in this Debate, and I am not sure that, when it came, his intervention helped a great deal. There were two parts of his speech. In the first he endeavoured to clarify the legal position and, in the

second, he put forward some arguments against our Amendment. On the first of the two points, I was a great deal more confused at the end of his explanation than at the beginning.

Mr. S. Silverman: So was I.

Mr. Mikardo: Whilst I agree that the subject is a tricky point of law, it nevertheless is the case that it sounded a lot trickier when he finished than it did when he began. Now with regard to the second part of his speech it consisted of paying a great deal of lip service, not for the first time, to the United Nations organisation strictly on the condition that His Majesty's Government do not do anything to put that lip service into effect. A little earlier we heard the Attorney-General describe the connection between jurisdiction and physical situation in the territory, and in the opinion of this Committee, of this country, and of the world, the Colonial Secretary cannot expect to go on indefinitely paying lip service to the United Nations in the face of the opinion of his Committee, of this country, and of the world and maintaining the condition that the Commission is not to be allowed into Palestine until a fortnight before our authority ends.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said an extremely important thing—that our present opinions on the Palestinian issue, our past or present partiality for the case of the Jews or the Arabs, have nothing to do with the anxiety about what will happen in Palestine when we leave. Equally, our past views of the rights or wrongs of this situation have nothing to do with what we ought to feel about this Amendment, because it is not in the least concerned with the relationship of the Government to the Jews in Palestine or elsewhere, or with the relationship of the Government to the Arabs in Palestine or elsewhere. It is concerned entirely with the relationship between the Government and the United Nations organisation. Therefore, we ought to consider this Amendment without any reference to, and without in the least being influenced by, the opinions we have held in the past about the general Palestinian problem.
1.15 p.m.
There were two sets of arguments used against the Amendment. The first was used by my hon. Friend the Member for


Buckingham (Mr. Crawley). I am sorry he is not here now to hear me say that I feel quite sure that, when he looks up his speech in the "political Wisden," he will come to the conclusion that it was not one of his best efforts. It is quite true that before he could get to the crease, and even before he could leave the pavilion, his amateur status was challenged, and he defended it to good effect. However, when he got to the crease he made the mistake of not looking round to see the disposition of the field, because he said that if the Amendment stood, it would be very difficult for His Majesty's Government to terminate the Mandate and to get out of their present responsibilities in Palestine. What that argument overlooks is that whereas, according to the Amendment, the word "determine" would be omitted, if the Amendment were carried, the following passage would still stand:
and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall cease to be responsible for the government of Palestine.
It follows conclusively, therefore, that there is nothing in the argument that the insertion into the Bill of this Amendment would make it impossible for the Government to terminate the Mandate when they want to do so. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary said that, on the advice which he had, he thought there was some danger, even with the inclusion of lines 10 and 11, in the omission of the word "determine." My hon. Friends and I do not feel strongly about this and, if he wants to retain that word, there is no reason why he should not do so, and why the Clause after Amendment should not read:
and all jurisdiction of His Majesty in Palestine shall determine and be transferred to…
We shall have a Report stage of this Bill, and as it begins to look as though there is some doubt whether we shall have it today, it will be possible, if that is what is worrying the Government and their legal advisers, to arrange for an Amendment retaining the word "determine" but meeting the point in our Amendment.
A quite different argument was used against the Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry and by the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).

They opposed this Amendment because it was unnecessary; because, since it was quite clear that on the morning of 16th May, if the United Nations Organisation could not exercise jurisdiction in Palestine and nobody else could, there would be no purpose in our saying that we transferred our jurisdiction to the United Nations organisation. I wish I could be quite clear about this because it seemed to me that the Attorney-General spoke with a different voice from the Colonial Secretary and, indeed, with a different voice from the voice with which he spoke in the Second Reading Debate, and a number of quite conflicting things were said. He said that there was some doubt about the legal position on 16th May. I took down the actual words of the Colonial Secretary in endeavouring to reply to an intervention. He said: "There was room for two opinions upon the subject."
If there is room for two opinions, the suggestion that the Amendment ought not to be urged because it is unnecessary begins to lose validity, and I fancy that both the hon. Members opposite who put forward this point of view might be inclined to revise their opinion in the light of the remarks of the Colonial Secretary and of the intervention of the Attorney-General. It is not clear beyond all argument—and the longer the Colonial Secretary went on, it became less and less clear—without somebody saying so, that, in point of fact, the jurisdiction will be transferred to the United Nations organisation or some body set up for that purpose. I want to put this question: what harm can there possibly be in accepting this Amendment? It has been said—but the point has been completely answered—that harm might lie in this fact. If the Amendment were accepted and we were obligated to transfer jurisdiction to U.N.O., and if U.N.O. at the appointed time could not or would not accept that power, we could not give up the power at all.
If I might revert to the analogy of the baby on the doorstep which was used by an hon. Gentleman on this side and also by an hon. Gentleman opposite, what is suggested is that, if we leave the baby on the doorstep of U.N.O. and U.N.O. refuses to take it in, we should have to pick the baby up and take it away, ourselves. That is arrant nonsense. I am not a skilled leaver of babies on doorsteps, and


I do not know what the technique is, but it seems to me, from what I read in the newspapers, that the people who do this do so with complete indifference whether the owner of the house is going to take in the baby or not. Therefore, this suggestion falls completely to the ground. In any event—and my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) was bursting to point this out but nobody would let him—the suggestion is met in the Amendment in his name—in line 10, after "and" insert "in any event." If the Government were to accept the present Amendment and also the one in the name of the hon. Member for West Leicester, we should then get a Clause with the following words:
all jurisdiction of His Majesty in Palestine shall determine and be transferred to the United Nations Organisation … and in any event His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall cease to be responsible for it.
If anybody imagines that that wording would make it impossible or any more difficult than does the present wording of the Bill for His Majesty's Government to hand over all their responsibilities on 15th May or sooner, they have not thought out the meaning of the words.
In fact, what are we arguing about? The choice before us is whether the Government shall be committed on 16th May to recognise the United Nations organisation as the authority in Palestine, or whether it shall be left open to them to recognise anybody, Jew or Arab or anybody else, who on 16th May by force assumes all control of that area. That is the real question. Since not all over the world do people know as well as we do the pure and lily-white intentions of His Majesty's Government, I feel sure that it would be said somewhere in the world that the object of resisting this Amendment was to leave the way open for the recognition of some government of Palestine which has been achieved by force, perhaps by external invasion by some States outside. If we want to make it clear that that is not the situation, we should say so, and the best way to say so is for the Government to accept this Amendment, by all means including the other Amendment to which I have referred so as to make it clear that they are not hampered in the task of getting out of Palestine.
If, then, there is, a form of words—and I think nobody will dispute this—which will make it abundantly clear that we give up our jurisdiction, and which, at the same time, will show that we, for our part, as loyal members of the United Nations, recognise the United Nations as the authority on 16th May, and nobody else—if there is such a form of words, and I am convinced that there is—I see no reason why the Government should not accept it, and should not begin to accept it by accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has not received much support from those benches for his contribution to this Debate. The hon. Member who followed him described his speech as "lame and lamentable." I am not going to join in trying to find epithets with which to describe his oration. The temptation which he put before to support this Amendment was much more powerful that the arguments of the Mover or the supporters of the Amendment. We on this side of the Committee however cannot support this Amendment if it is pressed to a Division, because, as we see it, these words are not necessary, as on 15th May, the right to exercise jurisdiction will automatically pass to the United Nations organisation. That is as we see it at present; it is certainly not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and there I entirely agree, that we should be told.
Surely, it is no use to us to be told that this is a matter of legal interpretation on which there may be two opinions? There may be a dozen legal opinions, but what we are entitled to know is what is the opinion of the Government, and that we have not been told. I do not feel that it would be right for this Committee to pass from this matter until we get an answer on that point. It is really no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that we assume that the United Nations will be in a position to exercise some authority in Palestine on 15th May, and that we are proceeding entirely upon that hypothesis, and, at the same time, shutting our eyes to all prospects which have any degree of reality behind them.
We are surely entitled to know from the Government and their legal advisers


—and the Attorney-General is here—whether it is not their view that the technical right to exercise jurisdiction over Palestine goes to the United Nations. After all, if we had given up the Mandate before the League of Nations had ended, there could be no doubt that the right of exercising jurisdiction would have reverted to the League of Nations. I know that the United Nations organisation is not legally the successor to the League of Nations, but, at the same time, it is the de facto successor. I should think that it was arguable that the technical right automatically passed to the United Nations, but that matter ought to be put beyond doubt and made absolutely clear by the Government. The Government may be right or wrong, but, at least, will they not say what their view is? So far, we have not been told it. It has been brushed aside; we have been told their assumptions, but have not been given an expression of their opinion.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did say that we are not transferring authority to other than the United Nations organisation. It follows from the first point, to which we must have an answer, that, if the Government do not accept the proposition that this is an automatic transfer to the United Nations after 15th May, arising automatically by the giving up of the Mandate, then, does it not mean that the Government are accepting a position of waiting to see who seizes authority in Palestine? If the Government do not accept the technical right passing to U.N.O., if the Government now tell us that that view is wrong, the only inference which I can draw from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that the Government are saying, "Well, after 15th May, jurisdiction in Palestine will be held and exercised by those who exercise the power to seize jurisdiction." It is a question of who gets into the saddle first, and we in this country have to watch and see what occurs when the saddle is seized. I personally feel a grave discomfort——

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Austin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we are going to watch and see after 15th May. Would he agree that in the circumstances, if there is no competent authority, British

troops and property are bound to be involved and that there is possibility of loss of life?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is absolutely clear, notwithstanding our giving up the Mandate on 15th May, that British troops, British civilians, British subjects and those who remain in Palestine after that date are likely to incur great risks and injury as well as loss of life. That appears to me to be a side issue, although a very important issue, from the point under discussion now, which is who is to have the right to exercise jurisdiction when we give up? Are the Government in this country accepting the position that when we give up there will be a void and a vacuum, with no one having the technical right to exercise jurisdiction? That void and vacuum might remain for quite a little time. We ought to get an answer to that, and the answer can be given quite shortly. What we want to know is, not whether we assume the United Nations will have authority and power to exercise jurisdiction, but whether His Majesty's Government recognise that the United Nations have the right after 15th May to exercise jurisdiction over that country?
I must say one word in conclusion having heard the argument of the right hon. Gentleman which indirectly, though not expressly, cast some doubt on the view I previously expressed. We on this side of the Committee cannot support the Amendment, which, in our view, would appear to be unnecessary.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend is going to accept the invitation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but I feel that some demurrer should be made at once to the idea that on 15th May jurisdiction will pass automatically to the United Nations. I am not dealing with the desirability or the undesirability of such a course. I hope hon. Members will understand that quite clearly. I am dealing with the question simply as a matter of international law and although it has many complicated aspects, there can be no doubt that the Mandate was conferred upon the United Kingdom not by the League of Nations but by principal allied and associated Powers.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I quite agree that it was conferred by the Allied Powers after the first world war, but we accepted the Mandate, as is shown quite clearly, on behalf of the League of Nations, which is to say that we exercised it on behalf of the League of Nations. Therefore, I would argue that if we had given up the Mandate during the existence of the League of Nations that body would have the right to exercise those powers automatically, because they would revert to the League of Nations.

Mr. Thomas: The League of Nations had certain powers in this matter, but they were limited so far as one can see to the examination of the Mandatory power in respect of its administration. Undoubtedly the United Nations, as successor to the League of Nations, would inherit those powers, but the League of Nations never had any sovereign power over Mandated territories, nor can the United Nations have such power.

Mr. S. Silverman: Supposing for the sake of argument that my hon. Friend's view is right and there is no automatic reversion of sovereignty de facto or de jure to the United Nations on 16th May, can my hon. Friend say what he imagines the position will be?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir, I deliberately refrained from so doing. There are two purposes for which Amendments are put down. One is to secure an improvement in the Statute and the other to elicit a statement of policy from the Government. So far as I am concerned, no statement is necessary. The attitude of the Government was made abundantly clear in this House and at Lake Success.

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner rose——

Mr. Thomas: No, I will not give way for the moment.

Mr. Janner: I just wanted to assist the hon. Member.

Mr. Thomas: I am almost inclined to say with the poet, non tali auxilio in such cases. The Government have made their attitude abundantly clear. They have said that they accept the decision of the United Nations, that they will not obstruct its execution, and will indeed facilitate it, but that they have no intention of using British Forces to carry it out. There has not been the slightest deviation from that

attitude by the Government, and we are now giving effect to that policy in our domestic legilsation. The real objection to this Amendment is that we cannot in this Committee legislate for the acceptance of this jurisdiction by the United Nations. Bills ought to be drafted properly, for we have had enough complaints about shoddy draftsmanship. Let us put into the Bill only those things which we have power to do, not something which we have not power to do. We have had many metaphors this morning, and I shall use another one. A horse can be brought to the water but it cannot be made to drink. The United Nations horse fairly galloped to the water, but it appears to be jibbing now it has got to the stream.
This Bill faithfully carries out the Government's intention. All we can do in this Bill is to terminate the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Palestine. Had there been time I should have liked to deal with precedents, but I shall deal with one only, namely, the case of Iraq. I have no recollection of any statute being passed making provision for the transfer of His Majesty's jurisdiction to King Abdullah.

Mr. Janner: There was agreement.

Mr. Thomas: Exactly, these are not matters for legislation, but should be dealt with by treaty or by some other Executive action.

Mr. Janner: Before the hon. Member sits down I should like to ask him a question——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Burden): Mr. Silverman.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question, would he explain what he thinks the League of Nations——

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. S. Silverman: When the Colonial Secretary said "This matter is abundantly clear," and then found it necessary to go on saying it in every second sentence until he finished his speech, and when everybody else repeats the statement that the thing is abundantly clear, it seems to me to demonstrate that there is no clarity about it at all. I do not understand the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He weighed in very loyally, generously


and courageously to support the Government in this matter on a perfectly definite assumption which he thought he was entitled to make—and I understand he still thinks he is entitled to make it—namely, that whatever is done in this Bill, whether it is said or not said, or whether it is said by this Amendment, by some other Amendment or is left out altogether, it is abundantly clear that automatic sovereignty de jure will go to the United Nations, and sovereignty de facto to anybody the United Nations, in time manage to get past the Colonial Secretary into Palestine.
I understand his argument so far; on that assumption he would no doubt be entitled to say, "Never mind the Amendment; we cannot support you on that; the thing is clear anyhow." Can he still say that after he has heard the Colonial Secretary, or after the intervention of the Attorney-General, who said that sovereignty will be exercised by whoever is there, or by the United Nations Commission if it is there? So far it is not there, and when the Colonial Secretary, in the last part of his speech, said the Government had been continually warning the United Nations about the approach of this fatal date, 15th May, and that it was the responsibility of the United Nations, I though he was endeavouring to do something which is quite impossible, to alternate, as he did at Lake Success, between, on the one hand, striking an attitude of injured innocence and moral indignation and, on the other side, taking a cue from a character in Tommy Handley and taking upon himself all the modern exhortations of "Charlie Come-Come." If the United Nations have done nothing so far to carry out the responsibilities which may be theirs, or may not be theirs, on 16th May, it is because my right hon. Friend would not let them.

Mr. Creech Jones: Nonsense.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman says "nonsense." Why are they not there? The Attorney-General says they can exercise jurisdiction only if they are there, but they are not there, and they are not there because my right hon. Friend will not let them in.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Has not this point become irrelevant, whatever relevance it may have had in the past, because has

not the Palestine Commission said it cannot go there without an international force, and that is for the Security Council to provide?

Mr. Silverman: I do not think it has said anything of the kind. I heard the Colonial Secretary say it has. So we are back in the position in which he left us with his Second Reading speech, and in which I say, in all humility, he has no right to leave the House of Commons. Is there to be a United Nations Commission in Palestine on 16th May or not? Are we to make our plans on the one assumption or the other? Are we to get no answer to all to that? [An HON. MEMBER: "No, we do not get one."] I really think this is quite disgraceful and if you will accept it, Mr. Burden, I would like to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. Silverman: Whether it is accepted or not, the position now is that the Committee is being asked to pass this Clause, and the House ultimately will be asked to pass this Bill, without knowing whether any of the assumptions on which it is founded is a fact. The Colonial Secretary, indeed, is saying that these assumptions will not be facts. Is he now going to say whether the Commission will be there on 16th May or not? It is quite pitiful—utterly and completely pitiful. The right hon. Gentleman sits on the Front Bench in a Labour Government, after the years he has devoted to the advocacy of a Jewish National Home in Palestine—he has risen to power, he has risen to his present position in the Cabinet by his faith in that idea—and now he says that this is where we are going to leave it, that we do not know whether any one is coming in our place or not, and we do not care. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's position? Is that what he is saying now?
1.45 P.m.
There should be no assumption that there is to be jurisdiction; there is no automatic jurisdiction, no automatic reversion of jurisdiction to the United Nations, and no actual sovereignty, on the assumption made by the Attorney General, because we know that nobody will be there at all, that is to say, on 16th May Palestine is to be an international no-man's land, where no writ runs at all, where there is no authority and no law


and no one with the right to exercise either. That is what my right hon. Friend calls accepting the decision of the United Nations.
At least we have got this much out of the discussion; it is now plain that this pretended acceptance of the United Nations decision is poppycock. Whether the Mandate was bogus or not, the acceptance of the United Nations decision, upon the present view of the matter, unless it is cleared up, is admitted to be bogus. The Government do not expect anyone to take their place; they expect no law, no government, no authority, no order, no power of any kind, and they are not prepared, in those circumstances, to put into their Bill any words recognising any authority of any kind in the United Nations. I wonder now what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite thinks about this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I will tell the hon. Gentleman if he wishes. My views have not changed at all from the views I expressed quite recently.

Mr. Silverman: I do not doubt that. Clearly it is the hon. and learned Gentleman's entitlement to reach a view that automatically power will go to the United Nations, but surely he is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench at the moment and not on the Government Front Bench, so whether power goes automatically to the United Nations or not must depend not merely on his opinion but on what the Government accept. The Committee has heard that the Government do not accept that. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right about it legally. Why not make sure, then, that what is right legally is accepted by the Government by putting into this Bill the reason for which he is accepting it, unless he, too, is in this business of paying as much lip service as possible in the hope that chaos will supervene and that out of anarchy can be obtained what cannot be obtained out of order.

The Attorney-General: There appear to be two matters involved in the discussions we have had on these Amendments today. One relates to a question of policy and the other relates to a question of law. I shall say nothing on the matters of policy. So far as the questions of law are concerned, two fallacies seem to underlie the discussions we have had. One is that

we can make international law by means of statutes of the United Kingdom Parliament and the other is the complete fallacy that juristic sovereignty can be transferred and passed like a sack of potatoes, or that it devolves, or that there is reversion in it in the way there may be in regard to a plot of land.
Juristic sovereignty is not capable of transfer in that manner nor is it subject to notional conveyance. Where juristic sovereignty lies depends very largely upon the facts. I did not intervene earlier in these discussions because on this matter I thought I had made my position and my view, for what it is worth—and it may be worth very little indeed—perfectly clear in the Debate on Second Reading. As it does not appear to have been clear to some hon. Members, I will repeat now what I said then:
If the United Nations is able, as we all hope it will, to exercise effective control, then Palestine will become an area entitled to legal recognition in international law as a legal entity under the control of the United Nations and held in trust with a view to its development, according to the wishes of the United Nations. If, most unfortunately, the United Nations Commission does not succeed in its task and if then the Jews and Arabs, faced as they would then be, by the dread alternative, do not find some accommodation between themselves and do something which no Act of this Parliament can ever do, establish for themselves their own form of government and make their own arrangements in Palestine, the position in that unhappy country will be that it would no longer have any de jure government or be entitled to recognition in international law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 1320.]
Whether, as a matter of international law, the right—the technical right, as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) called it—to exercise jurisdiction will pass to the United Nations is a most difficult and controversial matter. Indeed, it was suggested that it was a matter which ought to be submitted to the International Court, but that course was not adopted. It is certainly not a matter which will be settled by any ipse dixit from me or—if I may say so, with respect—from the hon. and learned Member for Daventry. My own view—and I do not put it forward in any confidence that it is necessarily the correct view; the hon. and learned Member may be correct in his view, because it is a matter quite without precedent, and one on which the leading authorities in international law take different views


—my own view, for what it is worth, is that juristic sovereignty will be dependent on authority in fact.
Whether or not there is in Palestine a centrally organised Government after 15th May is a matter which will depend, not at all on the legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament, but on the development of events. If the Commission is there—and only the United Nations can decide that; we cannot decide it, and nothing we can do in this Bill will decide it—and is able to command sufficient support and authority, it will assume the responsibility which we have laid down. It will do that none the more and none the less because we attempt, in a Bill of the United Kingdom Parliament, to write in statements of Ministerial policy. The position so far as the law is concerned, as I understand it in this matter, is that the United Nations is in no sense the juristic successor—I am not talking about the political or the moral successor; I am not discussing questions of policy—of the League of Nations; that was made very clear in the last Assembly of the League, when the position in regard to Mandates was fully discussed. The United Nations is in no sense the juristic successor of the League of Nations, and, in my view, unless it is able to assume responsibility in fact, then juristic sovereignty over Palestine would not automatically pass to it on any given date.
Having said that, I think I have said all I can say on that aspect. I would perhaps add a few words in regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn): in page 1, line 10, leave out from "determine" to the end of line 11. That provision—and I say so quite frankly—is really required for the sake of caution. Parliamentary draftsmen are often, and very properly so, cautious people. We want to make it perfectly clear, not only that His Majesty's jurisdiction—a term which is sometimes given a rather limited connotation—will come to an end, but that, at least so far as the law of the United Kingdom is concerned, any international responsibility of ours for the Government of Palestine under the Mandate will also terminate. We have had almost exactly similar language used in the cases which

have already been mentioned, and we thought it right to include these words. I am not prepared to pledge my opinion that if we did not have those words the result would be any different. That would be a matter which we should have to consider, and which might have to be discussed in litigation. We want to put it beyond any doubt, and so to have it quite clear.

Mr. Janner: I have listened with a considerable amount of anxiety, and with a terrible amount of concern, to the explanation given by the learned Attorney-General. What he is saying is that the United Nations has no power internationally at all, and that whatever combination may have been made between the various nations after the last war, with a view to establishing international relationships throughout the world, is entirely without, any basis.

Mr. S. Silverman: And that the statement which Sir Alexander Cadogan made, which my hon. Friend read out earlier, was just nonsense.

The Attorney-General: I did not say anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). I did not express any opinion on the question whether the United Nations has power or authority.

Mr. Silverman: Why not?

The Attorney-General: I confined myself to dealing with the juristic position. I said that the United Nations was not the juristic successor of the League of Nations. I said nothing about its political position, nor did I attempt to use the voice of prophecy as to what might be the de facto position after 15th May.

Mr. Janner: That is exactly what I complain about. My right hon. and learned Friend is, in fact, saying that although the United Nations may come to certain conclusions, juridically it has no power at all in the matter, and, therefore, it behoves the members of the United Nations to stand aside and to ignore everything that may be decided by that organisation. That, if I may say so with the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, would be reducing the position of the United Nations to an absolute absurdity. We have no right to call


upon the United Nations to deal with any international matter if we ourselves are not prepared to abide by the decision of that organisation, particularly as we are one of the members. No; that will not do at all, because it has been made amply clear in all statements on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they were anxious to place at the disposal of the United Nations and the Commission all the information, all the advice and everything connected with our administration, to help them to arrive at a decision.
This Clause is not complete. This is hindering—and hindering in a very vital sense, because if we really believe that the United Nations is the proper organisation for dealing with international affairs, it must necessarily follow that juridically it has that power. I commend to the Attorney-General that he should say now, quite definitely: "We are prepared, not to implement," if he insists, "but not to obstruct the decision of the United Nations," and he should reconsider the juridical position and advise the Colonial Secretary that juridically he is compelled to accept exactly what the United Nations has stated should be done. That is plain. If we are not juridically right, why did they come to the conclusion——

The Attorney-General: I did not deal with this point, but perhaps I ought to make clear that there is no legal obligation to comply with recommendations of the United Nations. We have been arguing this matter before the Court of International Justice, and their decision is at present pending. But nobody really suggested that any legal obligation arose, except from the decisions of the Security Council under particular chapters of the Charter. No international lawyer has ever said that any decisions of the United Nations Assembly give rise to a legal obligation. Some day, I hope, it may be that we shall have an international legislature, an international Parliament; but that day is not yet.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I do not want to detain the Committee, but I could quote categorical statements made by the Secretary-General of U.N.O. who made no issue of the matter at all. He said categorically that, the Assembly having come to that conclusion, the Commission were entitled —he did not say might be or would be entitled in certain circumstances—to

demand of the Security Council that they should carry into effect that which the Assembly had decided.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): That is exactly the point the Attorney-General is making.

Mr. Janner: If that is the case, then let us make the position clear in the Bill. The Colonial Secretary, who understand, the position with regard to the Mandate, knows that no modification of the Mandate was possible without the approval of the League of Nations when it existed. It is petty legalistic argumentation to say that the League of Nations does not replace the United Nations. Obviously, once the League of Nations was unable to continue its functions, the body which now exists, the United Nations, takes over. Therefore, no modification could take place without the United Nations approving of that modification. They have approved of the modifications, and therefore I ask my right hon. Friend to make this positively clear in these circumstances.
That is why we want it in the Bill—because of these arguments which have been used in the course of the Debate today and elsewhere—that we recognise the United Nations and are prepared to transfer or surrender jurisdiction to that organisation. We should say that we are prepared to hand over jurisdiction to the United Nations or to the Commission If they do not take over, then our responsibility has gone. That is what it means. In order to make the position perfectly clear, I have put down an Amendment stating that in any case our jurisdiction there shall be terminated. I ask, even at this late stage, that it should be accepted, in order that the world shall not regard us as being a dissident member of the United Nations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. JOSEPH HENDERSON and Mr. WILKINS were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly, "That 'determine' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to add:
or the right of His Majesty to protect the lives and property of British subjects
It seems to us that Subsection (2) of the Clause is much too narrow. Clearly, the Government are under an obligation to protect the lives, interests and property of British civilians in Palestine, in addition to the lives and property of the British Forces. There are a large number of civilians who will be left in Palestine after 15th May. There are business firms; there are various religious institutions; there are hospitals; and there are clerks work-

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 17.

Division No. 101.
AYES
2.8 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
House, G.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Ayles, W. H
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)


Bacon, Miss A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Barstow, P. G
Jay, D. P. T.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Barton, C
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Skinnard, F. W.


Battlay, J. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Snow, J. W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Sorensen, R. W.


Beswick, F
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sparks, J. A.


Binns, J
Keenan, W
Steele, T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Key, C. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Burden, T. W.
Kinley, J.
Symonds, A. L.


Callaghan, James
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Champion, A. J.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Chater, D.
Lyne, A. W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cluse, W. S
McAdam, W
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Collindridge, F.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Colman, Miss G. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Tolley, L.


Crawley, A.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Viant, S. P


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Marquand, H. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Daines, P.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Dobbie, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Donovan, T.
Moyle, A.
White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dye, S.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Pearson, A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fairhurst, F.
Pearl, T. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Perrins, W.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Proclor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Gibson, C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gordon Walker, P. C.
Ranger, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. Haded
Rees-Williams, D. R
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hale, Leslie
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Rogers, G. H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Royle, C.
Mr. Wilkins.


Harbison, Miss. M.
Sargood, R.





NOES


Austin, H. Lewis
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Solley, L. J.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Holman, P
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Janner, B.
Paget, R. T.



Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Piratin, P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mack, J. D.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Warbey and Mr. Mikardo.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

ing in a civilian capacity. None of these are, in a technical sense, related to His Majesty's Forces, and unless this Subsection is more widely drawn we think that the safety and protection of these people and their property may well go by default. There may well be a number of citizens of British nationality left behind in civilian hospitals, and the Government must take some responsibility for seeing that they are protected in the event of such violence as may take place after 15th May.

The Attorney-General: I can certainly give an assurance that everything possible will be done to protect the lives and


property of British subjects, but the matter is not one which it would be appropriate to deal with in this Bill. After the appointed day Palestine will become, in effect, foreign territory and nothing done under an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament could, as a matter of international law, in any way affect the rights which His Majesty possesses to protect British subjects and British property abroad. Nor is there anything in the Bill which in any way detracts from or diminishes those rights. While British troops are in process of withdrawing, after 15th May and before 1st August, they will, as a matter both of international and English law, be entitled to do whatever is necessary for the protection of British interests in the area which they actually occupy.
They certainly will do whatever is necessary for that purpose, and, indeed, will do whatever they can effectively do for the general protection of British interests. Anything that they do do in good faith and in the execution of their duty will either be an act of State and, therefore, not subject to suit in the courts of this country, or will be covered by the indemnity provision contained in Clause 2 of the Bill. The Amendment which the sponsors of this Amendment have put down to Clause 2 is one we should be prepared to accept, and will make it quite clear that that indemnity will be available——

Mr. Pickthorn: It is that Amendment to line 13?

The Attorney-General: Yes, it is in page 2, line 13, and it is in practically the same form of words as this Amendment. When we come to that Amendment, and it is embodied in the Bill, if the Committee see fit to adopt it, the position will be quite clear, and the indemnity Clause will apply in respect of acts done for the protection of British subjects or property after the appointed day. What we cannot properly do by United Kingdom statute, and what this Amendment would appear to seek to do, is to provide that when we have left Palestine, and it has become, as it will, in relation to the United Kingdom, a foreign country, we should retain any kind of territorial jurisdiction there. It will be a foreign country, and we are not entitled, by an Act of our Parliament, to retain territorial jurisdiction.
All that we can and do retain—and this Bill does not affect the matter in the slightest degree—is the right and no doubt the duty of His Majesty to give whatever protection he can to British subjects, by diplomatic intervention, by invoking the authority of the United Nations, and, in the last resort, by the use of force. That right does not in any way depend on statutes. I can give an assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government that it will be fully exercised, and that everything possible will be done. Nothing in the present Bill diminishes that right, as a matter of international law at all events, nor could this Bill increase it. In those circumstances, hon. Members may find it possible to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that I can be brief. I accept as authoritative the Attorney-General's explanation of law, but there were two small points about which I was not quite sure that I followed him. Perhaps he would be kind enough to correct or supplement his remarks if he thinks it necessary after hearing mine. One was when he talked about the rights which British troops will have for the protection of themselves and of British interests. Is it not true that the word "interests" there must be taken in a very narrow sense? Indeed, I am prepared to believe that nothing that we could put into this Bill could widen it. But I think that if "British interests" are taken in what might be called the normal sense of political conversation, the Attorney-General might have been supposed to have said that our troops preserved larger rights there than they do. Surely it is only "interests" in a narrow sense to protect themselves, British lives, and British things, actual physical things.
The second point I should like to put refers to what the Attorney-General said to the effect that upon our evacuating this territory it becomes "foreign territory." I am not quite certain that that is quite a fair form of words. Normally, at any rate, it is presumable that foreign territory is the territory of some other sovereign than His Majesty. Normally when one speaks of going from this country to foreign territory the use of "foreign territory" in that connotation means territory where someone other than His Majesty is sovereign. It may be


remembered that during the Second Reading Debate the Attorney-General said:
Palestine clearly will not be an independent sovereign State and for some time, at least, it will not have an independent government, assuming, as we must assume, that it has a government at all."—[OFFICIAN REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1320.]
Why must we assume that? It seems rather like the economic policy we get from the Government, "Assuming that there is plenty of food," "Assuming that there is more employment" or Assuming that the r is really worth 20S." and so on and so on. But here we are concerned not only with political but with legal effects.
I should like the Attorney-General to say—and I shall not be hurt if he says that I am talking nonsense, for those of us who are not legal experts may very well fall into nonsense when under duty to probe doubts on a matter such as this —I should like the Attorney-General to say whether, when Palestine becomes in effect foreign territory, it does so to all the effects of international law as previously understood. If not, I do not say that this Amendment becomes obligatory and necessary, but at any rate some explanation of how what this Amendment seeks to do can be done, and how far it can be done, ought really to be given to us; whether I am right there is something new and unexplained in international law here, the question arising that Palestine may cease to have a de facto or de jure sovereign at all, although the Attorney-General's argument, the previous half of his argument was on the assumption that there would be a sovereignty, at least a government, at any rate of some sort.

Mr. Solley: I rise in order to seek assistance from my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that I am in Order in doing so because I want his opinion in relation to Subsection (2) of this Clause. It is in relation to that Subsection that this Amendment has been moved.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid we cannot anticipate a Debate upon the next Clause. Hon. Members must keep to the Amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. Solley: In those circumstances, it will be better if I seek that information

when we reach the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have been away, and it is quite possible that I may not have noted all the details of His Majesty's Government's proposals for Palestine. One thing the Attorney-General said, however, disquieted me. He said that there would henceforth be no jurisdiction over any part of Palestine territory. I wonder whether he has appreciated the full significance of that, and whether anything has been proposed in the way of a legation or consular office so that some corner of England will remain in Palestine to which His Majesty's subjects can repair, if at all possible, in the event of some major emergency developing in Palestine. This Amendment seeks to protect the lives and property of His Majesty's subjects, and after all, even in Roumania, behind the "Iron curtain" we still have a legation——

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord. We do not talk about jurisdiction when we are referring to consulates or embassies. The presence of a consulate or embassy in a foreign country does not give His Majesty any jurisdiction in that country. We do intend to have consular representation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Attorney General says "consular representation," but will there be, in fact, a corner of Palestine territory with the Union Jack flying over it, where some protection can be accorded to His Majesty's subjects?

The Attorney-General: That was answered in "consular representation."

Major Beamish: I think that the whole Committee welcome the Attorney-General's assurance that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to protect British interests in Palestine after 25th May. I believe that the words he used were "everything will be done" to protect those interests. He later said "in the area actually occupied." I hope that that did not indicate any narrowing of the assurance which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), who made quite clear the object of the Amendment we put down. The Attorney-General also indicated that a subsequent Amendment was acceptable to the Government. I hope that he will make it clear whether, when he said "In the area actually occupied" there was


any intention to narrow down the assurance he gave. I hope that that was not so.

2.30 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to follow up what the Attorney-General said in reply to my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). He said that he could give an assurance that there would be a consulate or the equivalent. But how can he give that assurance? Surely, a consulate cannot be set up unless there is a government to whom British matters can be presented? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also say how the position of a consul to the United Nations will differ from that of a consul to another sovereign State? It seems to me that a consular establishment normally exists in another sovereign State very largely because it is another sovereign State in which we have no direct interest at all. Can we, in fact, have a consul to ourselves when we are part of the United Nations? I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could clear up those points.

The Attorney-General: That raises a very interesting juristic problem. The United Nations is an entity completely distinct from ourselves; one must regard it as something quite separate and distinct in international law. But, if the United Nations are in control, we shall be able to have a consul there, accredited in much the same way as consuls are accredited to other sovereign States. If the United Nations are not in control, and there is no other Power which assumes de facto and de jure rights of sovereignty, the position will, of course, be more difficult as a matter of international law. All I can say is that we intend to have somebody there.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his assurance in respect of this Amendment, and his assurance that a later Amendment will be accepted. Before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, I wish to ask him one specific question. Will he say exactly how wide the phrase:
jurisdiction of His Majesty in relation to any of His Majesty's Forces
can be interpreted? Would it apply to the building and the patients of a military hospital in, say, Jerusalem?

Major Beamish: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer at the same time my point about the area actually occupied?

Mr. Solley: On a point of Order. If you are going to permit questions relating to the jurisdiction of His Majesty, Mr. Beaumont, which is one of the matters I had in mind, would you permit me to speak on it, or would it be out of Order?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think, perhaps, it would be out of Order on this Amendment.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: As the Amendment relating to the interpretation of Subsection (2) was intended to widen the scope of that Subsection, I thought I would be in Order to ask whether the phrase:
jurisdiction of His Majesty in relation to any of His Majesty's Forces
would or would not include a military hospital with Service patients inside it?

The Attorney-General: If a military hospital were being conducted by His Majesty's Forces at the time, His Majesty would certainly retain jurisdiction under the Clause over the personnel there.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to add:
Provided that those of His Majesty's forces which may be in Palestine shall be withdrawn from Palestine on or before the first day of August nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and none of His Majesty's forces shall remain in any part of Palestine after the said date.
I think the arguments in support of this Amendment are quite clear, and I hope that the Minister may see his way to accept it. They arise from discussions which took place in the Second Reading Debate a week ago. We all know that the wish for British Forces to leave Palestine is universal; it is common on the part of all sections in Palestine. I am certain it is the wish of every party represented in this House, and of the people of the whole country, that our troops shall be withdrawn from what has become a very tragic situation for all concerned. I should like to see them withdrawn in their own interests and those of their relatives, even on 15th May, the date of the termination of the Mandate. Of course, that may be impracticable.
Earlier on, the Minister gave a date; he said that the date fixed for the withdrawal of troops would be 1st August. I can see no reason why, if that date has been given, it cannot be included in the Bill. There will be a period of two and a half months between 15th May and 1st August. Whereas, before today, there was no definite date for the ending of the Mandate, the Minister has now seen fit, and very wisely, to introduce an Amendment defining the appointed day as 15th May. Therefore, we know quite definitely that, between those two dates, there are two and a half months. I believe it is possible to withdraw such troops as are in Palestine in that period of 10 or 11 weeks. If the Minister thinks otherwise, then it is a matter which ought to be stated now. At the same time, it may be argued that, when the Mandate is ended, it will be necessary to have consultations with others concerned, with the United Nations Commission and with the new governments in Palestine.
On the Second Reading, there was something about which I was not clear —I do not think it was ever satisfactorily answered—and about which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) also asked for an explanation. It was the gap between 15th May and 1st October, to which the Minister referred on that occasion. In my opinion, the Minister never gave a satisfactory explanation of that length of time or of what was to be the state of affairs then.
As I understand it, on 16th May, the new governments may be established in Palestine. If such new governments are established by the Jews and Arabs, then I can understand that His Majesty's Government would have the responsibility of consulting with them as to the best manner and the period in which the withdrawal of our Forces from a country governed by other governments should take place. The Minister might argue that he wants to consult with such new Governments. If that is the case, I still think that it would be an excellent thing for the country to know that, whatever is the intention and wish of those new Governments, we are determined that no longer period shall expire after the ending of the Mandate than those ten weeks before all our troops are withdrawn.
We have heard that it is intended to withdraw the troops to other parts of the British Empire not far distant from Palestine itself. Therefore, if I may anticipate any argument, I feel that it cannot be such an impracticable task, because the proposition is not that all the troops should be withdrawn to the United Kingdom, but that they should be withdrawn to locations nearby in the Middle East. That, I understand is the proposition of the Government. Therefore, I feel that there is a very strong case on every ground for the Minister accepting this Amendment. I hope he will see fit to do so.

Mr. Solley: We are indebted to the mover of this Amendment for giving us an opportunity to indicate a most serious omission from the Bill. Although I am not entirely in accord with the wording of the Amendment, about which I shall say a little in due course, it certainly gives us the opportunity to observe that, whereas the Bill makes minute provisions in respect of the rights of His Majesty's subjects after the appointed day, it says nothing whatever about how long those rights are to continue.
In point of fact, under Subsection (2), it is quite clear that the jurisdiction of His Majesty in relation to the Armed Forces is to continue in Palestine after the appointed day. It is also clear from Clause 2 that no action can be brought in any civil court in respect of any matter, be it civil or criminal, which arises after the appointed day. Therefore, we have the somewhat anomalous and startling position that for an indefinite period—possibly for years—there will be two jurisdictions side by side in Palestine, one the jurisdiction of His Majesty in relation to the Forces still remaining in Palestine, and, the other, the jurisdiction or jurisdictions of the Palestine Government or governments then obtaining.
It seems clear that we ought to put some date in the Bill after which its wide provisions for the safeguard of His Majesty's subjects in Palestine should come to an end. If that is not done, it may well be that, merely because for a political reason His Majesty's Government desire to have troops in Palestine for two years, they will be completely protected in anything they wish to do. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that state of affairs arising or to ensure its coming


to an end. I think all Members will agree that the sooner our troops are out of Palestine the better it will be for everybody, and for our own finances. Rehabilitation in Palestine will be assisted if the day on which the last of our Forces is brought out is made as near as possible.
I can understand the difficulties involved in the Amendment. His Majesty's Forces might have to go to Palestine after the appointed day. I hope it may never be so, but if it were, the Amendment would prevent His Majesty's Government from sending soldiers there. That is a pure technicality; it is the object of the Amendment which is of importance. It would meet the wishes of all Members on this side of the House if a target day were fixed after which no British soldiers would remain in Palestine, to risk their lives and the treasure of this country.

2.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The fears expressed by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) form part of the general distrust which was expressed at one time in regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government. I assure the Committee that we have no intention whatever of leaving our troops in Palestine later than 1st August. That is the date to which we are now working. The shipping programme has been arranged accordingly. The accommodation for the troops is now being prepared so that by 1st August all the men at present in Palestine will have accommodation in other parts of the world.
It may be that matters which are now unforeseen may arise and that some troops may, in those circumstances, remain in Palestine. We do not expect that that will be the case, but it may be so. Therefore, we feel that it would be inadvisable to tie the military commanders down by Act of Parliament in a way which might cause them considerable disturbance. We have told them, and they have agreed, that 1st August must be the date by which all must leave.

Sir Patrick Hannon: How will that affect the retention of a certain section of the troops, and the appointment of a governor responsible for the Holy Places?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is an entirely separate matter. The termination of the presence of our troops in Palestine is unaffected by the arrangements to which the hon. Member has just referred. We are discussing the military withdrawal, which we expect will be completed by 1st August. The only question is whether that date should be inserted in an Act of Parliament. We think not, because it would tie the hands of the military commanders in a way that we think they should not be tied. That is the only reason. There is no ulterior motive whatsoever in our proposal. It is merely a question of allowing a certain amount of elasticity to the commanders if circumstances which are now unforeseen should make it essential for troops to remain after that date.

Mr. Piratin: The hon. Gentleman has said that matters might arise which would require our troops to remain. Would he please elucidate that point further? No one has suggested there are ulterior motives. The Government have said that they want their troops withdrawn, and every party in the House has said the same. There is no ulterior motive entering into the question at all. The only question is whether the Minister feels that the date should be in the Bill. If such undefined matters arise as have been referred to by the Under-Secretary, how long would it have to endure, for our troops to be required to remain in Palestine? If there were circumstances of the kind which the Minister has in mind but has not expounded to the Committee, and if they continued for one, two or three years, could our troops so remain? If so, what is the point of the Minister saying that our target date is to be 1st August. Secondly, by whose authority would our troops remain in Palestine when the British Government no longer have responsibility for administration and when other governments were established? Would our troops remain by the permission of those governments or in spite of them? I ask the Minister for reasonable answers to these questions, and then I might wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he does not impute any ulterior motive to His Majesty's Government. We do not expect that troops will remain in Palestine, but there may be unforeseen difficulties. There


may be a storm, a serious storm, which might wreck a troopship. [Laughter.] I am not a prophet. The gift of prophecy is not in me. There may be other reasons of a physical nature.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Caused by the clerk of the weather?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, certainly, and they may render the military programme of withdrawal difficult. Everybody who has had anything to do with such a programme knows that it is a most difficult one to execute and is always liable to go wrong. For those reasons only do we not wish to include in the Bill anything which would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief to a particular date. He is working to that date and I have no reason to doubt that by 1st August the last British troops will have left or that on 1st August the last British troops will leave. As to the point by the hon. Member for Mile End about authority, that matter ought perhaps to be addressed to the Attorney-General, but the authority between r5th May and 1st August will be that of the Commander-in-Chief. Actions done then will be done in his name, by virtue of his authority and under his instructions——

Mr. Piratin: The Minister is proceeding very satisfactorily, but would he be kind enough to say by whose authority the Commander-in-Chief would act after 1st August?

Mr. Rees-Williams: After 1st August the Commander-in-Chief would act by the same authority by which he has acted before the 1st August—that is by his own authority. 1st August is merely a date which we have fixed. It has no legal sanction. It is the datum line, and whatever is done before or after is done under the Commander-in-Chief's authority.

Mr. David Renton: I am glad that the Government are not going to accept this Amendment, which appears to me to be purely a wrecking Amendment. It is difficult to tell what it is intended to wreck, but one thing which is quite certain is that among other things which may be intended it will wreck the last-minute opportunities of any British troops who happen to remain to do what they can in accordance with the British Army's usual standards of honour, fidelity and duty. As the Under-Secretary has said, it is impossible to tell

what may happen between now and 1st August. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) can enlighten the Committee. Nevertheless: "There's many a slip…" and it is essential that the Government should retain power to meet such contingencies as might arise with any troops which we still happen to have on the spot. For once, I am pleased to congratulate the Government upon their firmness.

Major Beamish: I want to say a few words in support of the Minister and in opposition to what has been said by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I believe that it may be possible, and I hope that it will be possible, to withdraw all British Forces from Palestine by 1st August. However, the hon. Member for Mile End asked by what authority British Forces might remain after that date. Perhaps I might say that they would remain with a great deal more authority than General Markos has in keeping his forces in Greece, which would seem to be something about which the hon. Member should think.
It would be quite unfair to tie down the Government to any precise date in this connection. Supposing there were some very bad hospital cases which could not possibly be moved out of Palestine. Surely the hon. Member for Mile End does not suggest that we should simply leave them in a country which might be in chaos? Supposing that British ships which are taking our Forces out of Palestine are sunk by the Irgun Zvai Leumi or the Stern Gang, as they have been sunk before. What would we do then? Suppose the supporters of the hon. Member for Mile End organised an illegal strike. They have done that before. They are behind practically every illegal strike in this country. Suppose that happened again. For those few reasons—I hope I am not getting out of Order, Mr. Beaumont—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not be out of Order, but he is very close to it.

Major Beamish: I am very sorry, Mr. Beaumont. I will conclude——

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member opposite a "twerp?"

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear the word. I would have to ask for a definition. The best thing to do is to ignore it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me? I was wondering how he could define what is an illegal strike in a country where nobody has any jurisdiction?

Major Beamish: The hon. Gentleman is making a point which is quite irrelevant. Obviously I was referring to a strike which might take place in a ship which was to remove British forces from Haifa——

Mr. S. Silverman: Would it be illegal?

Major Beamish: Most certainly it would be illegal in the event of its not being a strike which was authorised by the trade union in question. Anyhow, I am quite obviously being led astray. I will conclude by saying that for once I feel very well able to support the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. A. Butler: We shall all agree that we have been passing through a very melancholy period in this Chamber, unheated and unwarmed as it is owing to the supine character of His Majesty's present Administration who are unable to sustain the normal——

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow him to pursue that argument on this Bill.

Mr. Butler: I was only trying to explain my state of mind, Mr. Beaumont, in approaching the arguments before us. I wish to raise certain important matters. Clause r is the vital Clause of the Bill. Many of us have waited a long time to take part in a Debate which has in the main been conducted between His Majesty's Ministers and their erstwhile supporters. We have now an opportunity of raising some matters which come more within the political than the legal sphere. I want, first, to raise certain points of detail and then I would like to make certain major points which arise on the subject of Clause 1.
First, the question of diplomatic representation. I raised this on the Second

Reading of the Bill on 10th March. I received only a very partial reply from the Minister of State. He used, among other expressions, the rather general one that we had made draft plans for representation in the South Territory. I am not quite clear what that expression means. Perhaps he would be good enough to give us some clearer answer whether if Palestine is, in the terms of the Attorney-General, a foreign country, we shall have a diplomatic representative in Palestine who can do his best to represent our interests there. The Attorney-General has made references to consular representation. It would be unreasonable, if we were to find that consular representation is suggested to be wholly satisfactory, that we should complain. We want to be certain that there is either diplomatic or consular representation of such status that it can be effective in the extraordinary period which we are approaching after 15th May——

Mr. S. Silverman: To whom would it be accredited?

Mr. Butler: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) because some of us on this side of the Committee thought that in his absence the Bill had lost some of its savour. He has arrived just in time to help me with my speech. This is a very difficult point upon which I feel sure we shall have the assistance of the Attorney-General namely to whom such a representative would be accredited. Perhaps the Minister of State, who has come to the Committee this afternoon to help us, will be able to give us a more detailed account as to the authority to whom the diplomatic representative, either consular or ambassadorial, would be accredited. It is a difficult question to answer, but, the Prime Minister having now come down to take part in our discussions, we might have his assistance.
3.0 p.m.
Then I want to refer to an important matter to the individual citizen, the question of passports. At present Palestine residents are British-protected persons, and thus entitled to a British passport. When we give up the Mandate they will lose that status and all the international protection attached to it. It is not quite clear what will happen, for example, to Palestinians already in possession of


British passports. I suppose that after the date that this Bill becomes operative, those passports will become invalid, and holders will have to look to the successor authority, or authorities, for new passports. There will also be Palestinians holding British passports temporarily resident in other countries, and I presume it would be for the country of domicile to provide an alternative passport for such unfortunate persons who would be deprived of their valid passport on that date.
I raise this question because, when I have had to intervene in a Palestine question before in much the same way as the Minister of State will have to intervene this afternoon, the question of passports has frequently been put to me. For example, one main argument in favour of a Jewish National Home was that at last the Jews would be able to have national passports of their own. Whether that eventuality emerges from the passing of this Bill is a matter of great conjecture, but we want to be certain what will be the position of those holding Palestinian passports and the circumstances of those citizens to whom I have just referred.
Then I would like to refer to the evacuation of ordinary British citizens who are not official and not military. Can the Government give us an assurance that facilities will be offered before 15th May for the evacuation of such persons in Palestine to wherever they want to go, presumably to this country, to the Middle East, to Cyprus or elsewhere? Can we have assurances that special schemes are being worked out for the infirm, the elderly or the impoverished to have such facilities before the date, since the time is rapidly running out? Then some of my hon. Friends on this side want to raise the question of the evacuation of our troops, to which reference was made in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I would prefer to leave that to the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) and others, however, and to put shortly the point we want to raise on this Motion that Clause 1 stand part—what sort of real priority will be afforded to the evacuation of the troops? Are they, or are they not, to wait until the different settlements meet for various harvest operations, which

frequently seem to come into Government statements? If they are to await such operations, it would appear that, owing to the shortage of traffic, of rolling stock and so forth, there may well be the delay which the Government does not desire to see in the total evacuation of British troops before 1st August?
Now, I want to ask your advice, Mr. Burden, as to whether you would like me to raise on the Motion that Clause I stand part, or on Clause 3, the many questions on the subject of finance, loans, assets and questions involving the Custodian of Enemy Property, and so forth, to which we did not get answers on the Second Reading and to which we would like to get answers on the Committee stage?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Burden): The right hon. Gentleman had better wait until we get to Clause 3.

Mr. Butler: If that is your Ruling, Mr. Burden, I will reserve the batch of questions which I have prepared with great care and assiduity to put to the administration on those subjects. That brings me back to the main issues of Clause 1. This is the occasion upon which we take leave of Clause 1—the termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine. All of us this afternoon must be feeling particularly sad that this should be the case, and extremely anxious, after what we have heard during the long Debates today, about what will occur when we go out. Those must be the sentiments on all sides of the Committee, whatever shades of opinion we may hold upon the Palestinian problem—and nothing that has emerged from statements from His Majesty's Government has given us any assurance on these matters. Nothing has been enlarged on, or added to the statement of the Secretary of State when he said that he could not be sure that after 15th May the Commission would be present to take over.
I ask the Secretary of State whether there is anything in the talk which I have seen in the newspapers that a truce is to be arranged between the two sides in Palestine. Rumours have come to my ears from those who are at present in that country that frantic efforts have been made, even in the last few weeks, to try to arrange some sort of truce which would leave the situation on our departure less alarming than it would otherwise be. Has any intervention been made by His


Majesty's Government, or their representatives with the United Nations organisation on the American continent, to try to arrange such a truce? Have any steps been taken with any particular Governments to enlist their aid, or any steps taken locally in Palestine itself, to try to arrange for a truce before we depart, or on the eve of our departure? I should find it extremely difficult to reach such an arrangement, but that does not mean that we should not try, and press the Government to do all they can to make the situation less hideous. Whether we share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that we should oppose the Zionist Movement, or of other Members, whose names I need not mention, that we should support the Arab case, the fact is that, with the British departure, the Jews and Arabs are going to be the sufferers. Whether we take sides or not, the fact of the British withdrawal will mean that there will be a grave responsibility placed on the leaders of those two communities on the date of our departure.
I did not feel at all convinced, when I heard of them on Second reading, that the administrative arrangements suggested by the Secretary of State are anything like adequate to meet the situation. The recruiting of one or two odd policemen in the villages, and attempts to get a small cadre of organisation, are nothing to the possibility of cataclysm which may take place immediately after our departure. I ask the Government not only if they have made efforts towards a truce and getting the two sides together—which I sincerely pray for—but whether in the intervening period they will encourage the possibility of strengthening the situation, so that an immediate crisis or clash does not take place on our departure. There have been rival voices in the Committee as to whether the issue here is one which can be placed as a direct responsibility on the Government or not. Were this in the ordinary clash of Debate, it would be possible for me directly to blame the Government and fix the whole blame on their shoulders, but as I said on Second Reading—and I adhere to it—since the Government put the matter before U.N.O., I believe that although they have been dilatory, they have been pursuing a policy on the right lines.
I am not satisfied, however, although they have had the right intentions,

that they have shown enough energy or strength in achieving some possible solution of this problem, which otherwise will be hideous. I make a last appeal to them on parting with this Clause, with a full sense of responsibility—and I shall not engender undue heat or unpleasant feelings, because we shall have unpleasant feelings enough before this story is ended—to tell us that they have made some efforts, in company with friends on the United Nations, and by appeal to this nation or that, to reach a more satisfactory conclusion than that of the present moment.
I have never been primarily responsible for the conduct of Palestinian affairs from the point of view of the Opposition. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) will be back soon to take charge of these matters. He has a greater knowledge of this subject than I could possibly have, and has greater support in the Committee than I could possibly have, but, in the very short period in which I have been brought in to help him and my hon. Friends on this side, I have been horrified by the situation as I have found it. It has left on my mind the most unfortunate impression, and I feel sure that there is the same feeling in the breasts of His Majesty's Ministers. I feel sure they will exert themselves to the utmost to avoid such events and scenes as we have seen in India, and to bring about a situation in Palestine which may be less awful than some of us fear.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should not have thought myself that there was any room for gloom or despondency or sadness in the mere fact that our authority in Palestine and the Mandate are being terminated. Nobody ever thought at any time that our authority was other than the authority of a Mandatory, or that it would be eternal or indefinite. It was contemplated from the start that it would some day end, and the fact that it does end is not of itself a matter for desolation or despair. That, by itself, meant the fulfilment of the Mandate. What makes us all sad to the point of broken-heartedness is that it should end in this way, that it should be terminated under failure, that it should leave nothing behind it but chaos and anarchy and despair. I cannot refrain from saying again that the policy, or lack of it, of His Majesty's Government in the last 2½ years must bear the main responsibility for that.
I do not want now to talk of that. We are dealing only with Clause 1 and what it does. The position gets more and more confused every time the Government make a further contribution to the discussion. We do not know at all what they regard as the proper position or what they wish to be the proper position. Everyone has been talking today about the United Nations position as if it consisted entirely of leaving a United Nations Commission in Palestine, but that, of course, was only part of the recommendations of the Assembly. It was one of the machinery parts, and that machinery we have obstructed. I do not want to repeat the speeches which I have made already today, but, if there is nobody there now, if there has been no gradual transference of authority to the United Nations Commission or anyone else, that is because His Majesty's Government so willed it.
I know that they say that they did it for the best reasons in the world—that they could not guarantee the safety of the United Nations Commission—and that it was wrong to have divided authority or to surrender our jurisdiction piecemeal, and that the presence of the United Nations Commission, and the carrying out of the other preparatory recommendations of the United Nations Assembly, would have been difficult. That would be all very well if we were putting in other and better preparatory arrangements of our own, but it is a very poor case when we are, designedly and deliberately, putting in no preparatory arrangements or machinery of our own. One might think that, in the absence of better proposals, there was a clear duty upon the Government to give full facilities to the United Nations to carry out the obligations which the Government themselves say are the obligations of the United Nations. The position into which they have now put themselves is the position of saying to the United Nations: "This is your responsibility; for heaven's sake do something about it, but we will not allow you to do any of those things which you wish to do about it." That is the exact situation, the result of all these long deliberations for the General Assembly and at the Security Council. That seems to me to be a terribly irresponsible thing to do.
3.15 p.m.
I can agree with the view that as things have now developed there is no future

for the Mandate. I do not think that that was always true, even in the last two years. I still believe that if the Foreign Secretary's undertaking to the Anglo-American Commission to implement their report if they were unanimous about it had been carried out, all the later tragedy could have been averted. It is no answer to say "Oh, America did something wrong about it," or "the Arabs did something wrong about it," or "The Jews did something wrong about it," or "There was no agreement about it." It was precisely because there was no agreement that the Anglo-American Commission was appointed. There were no qualifications and no conditions about the promise to implement their report if they brought in a unanimous report.
I know nothing, as I was not a member, but I feel certain, looking at the personalities of those who were members, and remembering that they did produce a unanimous series of recommendations, that many members of that Commission must have made great sacrifices of their own personal point of view in the interests of unanimity, believing that was far better than laying any emphasis on the points on which they disagreed. They preferred to sink their differences as an international commission and find ground on which they could get unanimity, relying on the undertaking of His Majesty's Government that if they were unanimous the Government, on their side, would implement the recommendations. If that had been done, I feel the Mandate would still persist with advantage to this country, to the world and to Jews and Arabs alike.
That was not done, and in its absence I confess that there is no future for the Mandate. We could not continue to bear that situation alone. Our soldiers out there, many of them boys of 18 and 19, ought to be brought home. Who was it who decided to send untrained troops of that age into that area? We certainly must bring them home now as quickly as possible, and with that part of the Government's present policy I am in enthusiastic agreement, but I cannot reconcile myself to doing it and leaving Old Anarch to reign in our stead, with nothing but chaos and no one with authority, as well as no law, no order no power, no rights, and without the United Nations, who have been called in,


to provide that series of steps to avoid the chaos which must otherwise result.

Major Beamish: What steps?

Mr. Silverman: The steps that the Commission must come in early and that the period between their entrance and the termination of the Mandate should be used to make the conditions recommended in the United Nations recommendations operative, to set up provisional governments in the Jewish and Arab States or in either of them if the other would not do it; to set up some authority in the meantime and gradually to transfer power, though not at once. It must be remembered that that cannot be done at once. Administration could gradually be handed to these bodies so that when the time came for the Mandate to end there would be some authoritative body to take our place. Remember, we were left with the choice of date. No one imposed any limits of time on us, but it was suggested "Whatever date you choose, let us in beforehand, and let us set up this machinery as best we can, so that we can transfer authority gradually and progressively to those who are to take over, and when you go there will be somebody with the right of succession left behind to prevent the thing falling apart into anarchy and chaos."
It is no answer to say that the recommendations were difficult to work or that we did not approve of them, unless we were prepared to suggest better ones. If we were not prepared to suggest better ones of our own, surely at least there was an obligation upon us to allow those which the United Nations had agreed to be worked if possible. All we have done has been to prevent them from trying. The Minister of State shakes his head. I do not understand why. It is a fact; we have prevented them from trying.

Mr. McNeil: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member. I shook my head because, for example, he has told us over and over again about the impediments we have placed in the road of the Commissioners. No attempt is made to examine the facts. My hon. Friend knows, for example, that we invited the Commissioners to come to London so that the difficulties might be discussed. Not only have they not come to London, but we have not even been notified of any date on which they would arrive.

Mr. Silverman: The Minister of State does his best as a loyal Member of the Government to defend the Government and Government policy, and I admire and applaud him for doing it. I am sure he makes the best case that can be made, but I am sure that when he is off the Front Benches he will be the first to recognise how poor it was.

Mr. McNeil: No, no.

Mr. Silverman: Well, then, he will not. If he does not recognise it, it is his business and not ours. The rest of us, I can assure him, will not find very much comfort in the intervention he has just made.

Mr. McNeil: There are the facts.

Mr. Silverman: I will not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on his statement of the facts. I know he has stated the facts correctly; it may be that they were invited to come here and did not come. So what? They wanted to go to Palestine and they were kept out. There, is no answer to that. They should be entitled to choose for themselves. It may be that the policy of His Majesty's Government was wiser than that, but we have seen little evidence of it and the result of that policy does not lend any colour or credibility to the view that we knew so very much better than the United Nations what would happen in certain eventualities. I will not argue that, however: it may very well be that they were wrong not to come, but that is no answer to the case I am putting.
I am saying they were entitled to choose for themselves, and what the United Nations told the Commission to do was to go to Palestine, and what His Majesty's Government did was to stop them from going. [Interruption.] Who said "No"? The facts are beyond dispute, and nobody disputes them. Certain reasons have been given. I do not care whether they were good ones or not, for unless we were prepared ourselves to take preparatory steps to avoid chaos when we left we had no right to prevent other people from taking such steps as they wished to take to avoid chaos when we left.

Major Beamish: Is not the hon. Member completely ignoring the fact that t is utterly impossible to enforce partition on an unwilling Arab population without an international police force or a force of


some kind. Therefore, does not his whole argument fall absolutely flat?

Mr. Silverman: I am not ignoring that, nor am I ignoring anything else; nor did the United Nations General Assembly ignore it, either. All these facts were known. I know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is thinking; I also know the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look upon the facts fairly and not draw the wrong inferences from them. The point he has just made was well within the knowledge of the United Nations Assembly when they made their recommendations; they knew it was difficult; we all know it is difficult. The question is not whether it is difficult, but whether anything they could have done——

Major Beamish: The hon. Member does, then, accept the fact that the United Nations have completely and utterly failed to face up to their responsibilities and to the implication of the decision they have made?

Mr. Silverman: I thought I was saying the exact opposite. They did not assume jurisdiction in this matter. It was His Majesty's Government who invited them to do the best they could. His Majesty's Government went to the United Nations and said, "We have failed. We can do no more. Take this Mandate back and do better with it yourselves." The United Nations, so far from failing to face up to its responsibilities, faced up to them manfully and, let it be remembered, reached the same recommendations as were reached in 1937 by the Peel Commission, which all parties and all newspapers in this country were recommending to His Majesty's Government last July before they ever went to the United Nations at all.
The Foreign Secretary, dealing in this House with partition, said: "I cannot enforce it. I cannot do anything about partition, because it is outside the Mandate. I have no authority under the Mandate to set up Arab and Jewish States in Palestine. If partition is the solution, only the United Nations can do it." He made no objection to it; nor, at the United Nations, did we either object to partition or recommend anything else. It is very unfair, in those circumstances, to say of the United Nations that they

did not face up to their responsibilities. They did: they made a series of recommendations, and they set up machinery—maybe inadequate machinery; I do not know—upon which they relied to implement their recommendations. Maybe it would not have worked, but His Majesty's Government are not entitled to say so, because His Majesty's Government prevented the United Nations from trying. That is the melancholy in this Clause: not the termination of the Mandate, but the hopeless gesture of despair, of running around like spoiled, vain children who, because they cannot get their own way, will not play. That is what is sad about it: the complete abnegation and repudiation of authority, and the abnegation of moral responsibility—the running away.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: If I felt that there were time I could argue with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for a long while.

Major Beamish: There is half an hour.

Mr. Low: I know, but there are many others who want to speak. I noticed that the hon. Member punctuated his speech with remarks such as, "I do not want to repeat the speeches I have already made." Many of us had had the chance of hearing those arguments from him before, and my hon. Friends have answered him before. I wish to concentrate on the points mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), connected with the evacuation of our troops and of military stores.
When the Minister of State wound up the Second Reading Debate he said:
For security reasons it still is important that I should not attempt to give any details in reply to that question about the state of our withdrawal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; 448, C. 1358.]
Five days later the authorities in Palestine proceeded—so we are told by "The Times"—to give a series of details. The right hon. Gentleman might have tied up his security advice with the security advice given to the people on the spot, because this information, with perhaps fuller details which he could have given us, would have been of great interest to hon. Members, and to all those in the country, who are seriously concerned with the position of our troops


and of our stores. I notice that a remark made outside this House by my noble Friend Lord Salisbury, that the value of the stores was £50 million, has never been denied. We cannot afford to give away £50 million, or even part of £50 milion at this time, unless there is a very good reason.
3.30 p.m.
First, let me deal with the position of the stores before passing to the evacuation of the troops. Though I take the position of the stores first, it is not because I think the stores are of greater importance. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the total quantity of valuable Army stores and equipment to be moved from Palestine since the decision about evacuation was made, is 623,000 tons. Added to that, there is a quantity of 25,000 tons of Royal Air Force stores. I got that information from answers to Questions I put in this House on 10th and 28th January. I am told, in the report in "The Times," that out of that 648,000 tons only 145,000 tons have so far been evacuated—that is up to the middle of March. Surely, that is a very unsatisfactory position and even more unsatisfactory when the authorities in Palestine state that the aim is to load at Haifa, which is the only port in use, 16,000 tons of stores per month, rising to 20,000 tons. We can immediately see that more than half of these stores are to be left behind.
Hon. Members may think that that is not a very bad thing, because there is obviously a lot of stores which have to be left behind, but perhaps they do not remember that the 623,000 tons of Army stores which I referred to is the residue of a much larger quantity, and that it has already been decided to dispose locally of just under L000,000 tons of Army stores. It had apparently been decided that we must try and evacuate the whole of this 600,000-odd tons of stores and equipment, but it looks as if we shall fall down on this to evacuate very much less than half by 1st August. I realise, of course, that some stores can be evacuated by road and rail, but I do not think anyone will expect a greater tonnage to be evacuated by road-rail than can be evacuated by sea.
What has been holding up this evacuation? As I have said before in our discussions on Palestine, there seems to be no reason why the evacuation of stores

should not have begun immediately it was decided to refer to the United Nations. What has caused this very small amount of stores being evacuated? There are two possible reasons. Firstly, that the citrus traffic has been given a higher priority than the evacuation of Army stores. One can form that opinion, based on what the Secretary of State said on 11th December. He said:
It is our purpose to cause the least possible disruption to the economy of the country, and to interfere as little as possible with the normal trade, especially the citrus trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c 1214.]
In general, we are obviously in sympathy with what the Secretary of State said on that occasion, but it occurred to many of us that, as a result of the application of that principle, the evacuation of stores was being held up in favour of the citrus trade, but the Under-Secretary denied that on 26th January. What do we find in this statement issued by the authorities in Palestine on 15th March? This extract was not published in "The Times." They say this about the evacuation capacity:
Palestine railways have a total capacity of 22 trains of all kinds a day. Much of this is not available, owing to the higher priority demands of the citrus trade and the necessity to sustain the civilian economy.
There is a certain amount of contradiction to say the least of it, which must be cleared up by whoever replies to this Debate. I suggested that there were two reasons for the small amount of stores being evacuated and I gave as a first reason the priority given to the citrus trade.
The second possible reason is that insufficient shipping has been made available. I was in some doubt about this at the beginning of this year, and I put a Question to the Minister of Transport on 2nd February. I asked him:
…for what tonnage of Service Department stores scheduled to be evacuated from Palestine will shipping be available in each month of 1948.
The right hon. Gentleman refused to give me any details on grounds of security, but when I asked him a supplementary question:
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient shipping for the plans? …
he replied:
…Yes …."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1948; Vol. 446, C. 1451–2.)
Again, I refer the Committee to a statement made by the authorities in Palestine


where, in discussing evacuation difficulties, they said this:
Haifa is the only suitable withdrawal port, and sufficient shipping is only now becoming available
It seems that the Minister of Transport did not know the facts when he replied positively on 2nd February. I ask the Committee to give this matter their serious attention, because the importance of evacuation has been stressed from both sides of the House. It is a difficulty which all hon. Members understand, but surely we must insist that when Ministers are replying to our doubts we should have answers based on the facts as they are. It would seem to me that there have been some mistakes or some negligence—I would not say wilful hiding of the facts —which is something which we in this Committee should not tolerate from the Government Bench.
Now I come to the position of the troops. Again, I have to take what evidence I can put to the Committee from this extract in "The Times." First of all, withdrawal from Jerusalem. I understood it was the intention of the Government that all troops should be withdrawn from outlying stations, including Jerusalem, into a bridgehead or enclave, or whatever it is called, immediately following the termination of the Mandate on r5th May. I find that the Army authorities say:
The British Army are not likely to be in Jerusalem much more than two weeks after end of the Mandate.
We know from the newspapers and reports from the Government of the terrible strain which faces British troops today in Jerusalem. What will be their position during the two weeks after the termination of the Mandate on 15th May? We know from statements made by Ministers that there is no proper restriction on the carrying of arms in Jerusalem by Arabs or Jews, and that there will probably be no restriction on the carrying of arms after 15th May. Be that as it may, until 15th May we have authority in Jerusalem, and by the exercise of that authority we can protect the lives of British troops. Does that position apply after 15th May? I rather think not. What will be their position? What will they be there for, and what arrangements will be made to see that they can be protected?
Then I want to ask one or two questions about the position when we finally get into what I would call the bridgehead. As I understand it, the Commander-in-Chief will have authority over persons and property in the area covered by British troops, because he is Commander-in-Chief acting for His Majesty the King. He would, therefore, in normal times, have authority to permit the carrying of arms by civilians, as I think the Attorney-General will agree. Obviously that is so in wartime, and I should have thought that it would be so in peacetime. In fact, we find that as a result of the policy of His Majesty's Government, authority has been given to both sides to carry the necessary arms to defend themselves. Therefore, we shall have our Forces withdrawing into an area which is full of men who are potentially hostile, I will say no more than that, to each of our soldiers, and who are allowed to carry arms and have ammunition. That seems to me to be a very odd state of affairs. I should like to know whether the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to rectify that matter, if he so decides, is in any way limited? I should be grateful for answers on these points when the right hon. Gentleman replies.
I wish to raise one more point, which can be most conveniently raised on this Clause, because it concerns a type of British official not covered by any other Clause in the Bill. As I understand the position, provision is made elsewhere for dealing with the case of the civil servants of the Palestine Government. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to British citizens who are in the employment of the Municipal Corporation of Jerusalem. This, I think is a new point. The position of such a British citizen is not covered by the Bill because he is not in the direct service of the Government of Palestine. Such people, if I may draw an analogy with the Government of India Act, resemble in their position that of the non-Secretary of State civil servants in India, whose position has caused many hon. Members a great deal of anxiety, and in whose case there has not yet been a satisfactory settlement. It is because of my memory of the problems there that I am raising this point now.
I would like to emphasise what the position of these officials is. I have here particulars of one case in which a man,


who happens to be a constituent of mine, joined the staff of the Municipal Corporation of Jerusalem 28 years ago, having been appointed to it by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. He feels that whatever may be the legal position when His Majesty gives up jurisdiction in Palestine, he must give up his position in the Municipal Corporation of Jerusalem. He feels that his future career has been ended by the action taken by His Majesty's Government, whether we like it or not. Is it not, therefore, right that His Majesty's Government should look to it and see that this man is compensated, or at least that his pension is guaranteed. I put that point to the right hon. Gentleman. I should not be surprised if he is unable to give me an answer at present, as these matters are difficult, but I should like to emphasise it to him and to seek an answer later.

3.45 P.m.

Mr. Warbey: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been that the Chief Whip rather unkindly produced the axe. I had been hoping to catch the Chairman's eye and to make a speech in reply on the earlier Amendment. Unfortunately I was unable to make it, so a very good speech is not on the record. I do not intend to put it on the record now but a number of points still remain completely unclear and before we part with the Clause we ought to have clear answers to one or two points.
I must confess that after hearing the speech of the Attorney-General I felt there was more necessity than ever for the Amendment we had proposed. I would like to know whether the Government are prepared to look at this matter again between now and the Report stage and to alter the Clause in the way suggested. There is no reason why an Amendment should not be made. If there is any drafting difficulty I hope the Government will be able to remove it, and will produce an Amendment on the Report stage in the terms which have been suggested. I do not quarrel with the statement which the Attorney-General made that juristic sovereignty would not automatically pass to the United Nations on the appointed day. It is true that he went on to argue that we could make it pass to the United Nations by writing something into the Bill. It may well be that we cannot create international law by an Act of this Parliament

and that a legislative Clause is not the appropriate way of doing it.
What is certain is that the decision and statements, statutory or executive, of this Government, are a contributory factor towards the situation that will arise after 15th May. On 26th May, according to the legal opinion of the General Secretary himself, the United Nations will be responsible for Palestine. The Attorney-General says there is doubt about it, and that where Juristic sovereignty lies will depend very largely upon the facts. What are the facts, in a case where it is a question of which authorities receive de facto or de jure recognition? What contributes to making the facts in such a case? Surely one of the facts in cases of this kind is whether or not governments recognised bodies as de jure or de facto governments? That is an important contribution to the facts. If the British Government will make it absolutely clear that at midnight on the appointed day the authority which the British Government recognise will be the United Nations organisation and no other body whatsoever, that would be of importance.
I am not asking the Government to put that statement into the Bill, but at least the Secretary of State for the Colonies could make a clear and unequivocal declaration to that effect. If he is not prepared to do that, then the suspicion to which my other hon. Friends have already pointed must arise, that the Government are endeavouring to leave the door open for the possible recognition of other authorities. We know there are other people claiming, and going to claim, authority in Palestine; we know that people are going to seek power by force, and we know that the rebel and war traitor, Khader Hussein, has been in Palestine, and will go there again as soon as he can——

Mr. S. Silverman: He is there now.

Mr. Warbey: —in order to establish his authority by force in Palestine. Do we really want to leave the door open for an authority of that kind, or do we want to close the door to the recognition of any rebel authority against the authority of the United Nations? That is really the test of this case. Do we recognise the authority of the United Nations over Palestine as becoming absolute and unequivocal on 26th May, or do we leave the


door open to the recognition of any rebel authority, that is to say, any authority which would be in rebellion against international society? I ask the Government to give us, if not an assurance that it will amend this Clause, at least a clear declaration on this point so that nobody will be in any doubt when 16th May comes that this Government recognise the United Nations organisation as being responsible for exercising jurisdiction and maintaining law and order in Palestine.

Sir P. Hannon: I have never been present in a Debate in this House which has given me greater anxiety than the Debate which has taken place this afternoon. I certainly do not envy His Majesty's Ministers the situation they will be in after their handling the Palestine problem. They will be in a pitiful situation. Let us try to visualise the position of the-people in Palestine in the interval between 15th May and the time when some form of settled administration comes into being. It will be a deplorable position, which will certainly give the greatest anxiety to people throughout the country. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I followed his speech today with great interest and sympathy. He presented a case to this House which His Majesty's Administration will find it very difficult to answer, not that I would like to accuse the Secretary of State for the Colonies of being unable to deal with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. However, he certainly presented a case which will take some time to examine in order to give an appropriate reply.
What is going to happen in Palestine during the interregnum, during the difficult and dark days which the people there will have to suffer? What undertaking can the Government give to this country, and, indeed, to the whole civilised world, that the situation in Palestine will be maintained in such a way as will permit a decent and wholesome relationship to exist among the individuals who come under the administration of the United Nations?
In the Second Reading Debate, I asked the Secretary of State whether, in this interregnum period, he proposed to make any careful preparation with a view to safeguarding the Holy Places in Jerusalem. I apologise Mr. Beaumont, for

coming back to that matter again, but it is one of grave anxiety to masses of people throughout the Christian world, and, indeed, not only throughout the Christian world, but throughout the Jewish and Muslim worlds as well. Try to imagine for a moment the situation in Jerusalem, which has been the foundation of the three great religions of the world. Imagine the administration of that community. No Governor has yet been appointed and there is no formally constructed Constitution. No system of Government on practical lines is in operation or even conceived, and the place is to be left in chaos for an interminable period. Faced with a situation of that kind, what reply has the Secretary of State to make as to acts of constructive statesmanship during the time he has been in charge of the Colonial Office?
All over the world today people will feel that in handling this grave question the Government have muddled it and messed it in a way which will be accorded by mankind the verdict of being one of the ugliest and darkest chapters in the history of our present administration? I grieve to think of the situation in Palestine when the United Nations administration takes over. Have His Majesty's Government yet found a Governor of the character, vision, judgment and other qualities competent to deal with the situation which is bound to arise, and have they prepared any scheme of administration for the competent authority to exercise?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would like the hon. Gentleman to get his facts correct. The Trusteeship Council is charged with the responsibility of discovering the Governor. We have done everything in our power to press the Trusteeship Council to a conclusion on this matter. If the Trusteeship Council has postponed its consideration of this problem, the responsibility must not be laid at our door. We have done all we can to hurry up the deliberations of the Trusteeship Council, and we cannot do any more.

Sir P. Hannon: Of course I accept that at once, coming from the Secretary of State, and indeed he has my deep sympathy in the trouble through which he has passed in relation to this great international question. However, he should have taken earlier steps to secure that the action of the Trusteeship Council would be exercised more vigorously and quicker.

Mr. S. Silverman: The setting up of a separate part of Palestine to cover Jerusalem and the Holy Places was only part of the general scheme of partition. There are three areas—the Arab, the Jewish and the internationally-controlled areas. The Government's difficulty is that they say they are trying to press the United Nations to implement one part of it and are obstructing it in every other part.

Sir P. Hannon: I leave the Secretary of State to deal with the subtle implications of that statement. Believe me, the country is feeling very bitter about the situation. They feel that Palestine is in a state of chaos and anarchy, the future consequences of which cannot be seen. I sincerely hope that at the eleventh hour, before we reach the Report stage of this Bill, some effort of statesmanship will be made. One might say in the language of Gladstone that the resources of the State cannot be exhausted, the resources of civilisation cannot be exhausted, at the disposal of His Majesty's Ministers in dealing with a problem, the peaceful and hopeful solution of which would mean so much in the decent opinion of mankind in the future, as to the manner in which this Government carried out its responsibility in Palestine.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I wish to support the very earnest plea which has been made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). It is quite clear to me, as it must be to many other hon. Members, that the future of Jerusalem is causing very widespread anxiety throughout the world. As the Secretary of State has said, it is quite true that the Trusteeship Council has been asked to make such arrangements in regard to Jerusalem as may be appropriate. It seems to me, however, that the request to the Trusteeship Connell was made at a rather late stage in the proceedings——

It being Four o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I desire to raise certain aspects of a large question, the large question being the working of the Central Office of Information. Nobody appreciates better than I do, having given some study to the subject, the fact that it is quite impossible in the course of an Adjournment Debate to touch on more than one or two of the many important issues which the working of this Office involves. Therefore, I express the hope that this afternoon's Debate may not be the only Debate on this subject during this Session. Indeed, were it not so unappetising a subject, I would describe this Debate as an aperitif but perhaps, in the circumstances, one had better describe it as a reconnaissance.
The two points I desire to put to the House this afternoon are these: firstly, the very big question as to whether it is desirable to have in time of peace, for the purposes of internal propaganda, what amounts to a Ministry of Information. That itself is a big question, and there will inevitably arise from it the secondary question as to whether, if we have what is tantamount to a Ministry of Information, we do not inevitably get that Department involved in party controversy and party politics at the public expense. I desire to put these two points as speedily as I can to the House, and would only say in general that the observations I am about to make do not apply at all to any question of overseas activity, which is a separate question. My observations apply only to activity inside this country.
On the first point, the desirability of maintaining what is in substance, though not in form, a Ministry of Information, in many ways the present organisation is a great deal worse for, if we have a Ministry of Information, we have ex hypothesi a Minister of Information who can answer for his Department. This curious Central Office is apparently brooded over with remote geniality by the Lord President of the Council. It is on occasion answered for by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was the other day answered


for at Question Time by, of all people, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance, and, to complete the confusion, I understand that this afternoon's Debate is to be replied to by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It seems, on the face of it, that there are certain administrative and Parliamentary anomalies about collecting this constellation of Parliamentary luminaries to answer not for a Ministry at all, but for what is modestly described as a Central Office.
Secondly, I suggest that this House and the country should be inclined to watch with some vigilance the working of this Office, for this reason: a Ministry of Information or a Ministry of Propaganda is the usual instrument of a totalitarian regime and, as such, in time of peace it is an innovation in this country and, therefore, should be treated with careful and close public and Parliamentary scrutiny. Thirdly, it is a somewhat expensive form of activity in these days of financial stringency. The Civil Estimates for 1947–48 indicate a gross expenditure of no less than £4½ million for this Office, which is a net increase of £871,000 over the 1946–47 Estimates and, therefore, financially, quite substantial. Its activities are indirectly reflected even further in the fact that the Estimates of the other Departments for publicity, Press and poster advertising, have risen from under £2,000,000 in 1945, to close on 3,000,000 in 1947.
On the question of extravagance, I ask the Under-Secretary to tell the House a little about this document, which I hold in my hand, entitled "Something Done."[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Not, perhaps, the epitaph which most people in this country would pronounce on this Government. It is an affair of no less than 64 pages of the highest quality of paper, produced at the far from austerity price of 1s. 6d. at a time when the ordinary Press is starved of paper of all kinds. Why has it been thought necessary, or desirable, to use this amount of paper to produce this kind of publication at this time, of all times in our national history? It is full of the most admirable photographs of various activities of our national life. The quality of the production is quite excellent, but I am concerned with the reason for it, and

why public funds should be used to sponsor a publication which must necessarily compete with the ordinary commercial Press.
The other matter to which I invite the attention of the House is the tendency of this body to indulge in political propaganda. I have been through a great deal of its productions and find that the general tenor of the material it puts out, the briefs for speakers, advertisements in the Press, speeches, lectures and so on, is such as to suggest to the public that the present Administration consists of a number of good and wise men struggling valiantly and successfully against circumstances which they did nothing to create. As in this country one is entitled to believe anything, one is entitled to believe even that, although the comment might well be made, which was made by the great Duke of Wellington when, addressed in these terms, "Mr. Smith, I believe," he replied, "Sir, a man who would believe that, would believe anything."
While people—a decreasing number I think—are entitled to believe that, and, indeed, are entitled to put forward that point of view, what they are not entitled to do is to use public money and the machinery of a public Department to put it forward. It is not the view held unanimously, or anything like unanimously in this country. Another body of opinion appeared at North Croydon last week to be not inconsiderable, a body of opinion which regards this as a Government, which, faced with obvious difficulties, has aggravated those difficulties by a policy of financial extravagance, inflationary economics, and the diversion of the national effort from reconstruction into wanton and reckless schemes of nationalisation. What is objectionable is that propaganda should be used, and financed from public funds, for the purpose of putting forward that view, as against the other. I quite appreciate that the officials of this office are in some difficulty when asked to make pronouncements, or speeches, or write articles on this subject. They cannot be paid by the Government to advocate the second of the viewpoints to which I have referred. There is, therefore, a risk that, in discussing these matters, they will take the first line. It is no reflection on them, although it is a reflection on the system which puts them in this position, that they do so.
I wish to quote, as powerful support for that proposition, no less a person than the Lord President of the Council who, when challenged about a brief from the Central Office of Information said, on 10th March:
Almost any statement on this subject is liable to be regarded as controversial.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; vol. 448, C. 1232.]
Of course. Why, then, use a public office to put forward statements on a subject which inevitably must be controversial? That is surely the issue with which we are concerned in this Debate.
Let me give another example—the briefing of speakers for a series of talks, organised, I understand, for a period beginning rather appropriately on 1st April this year, on the subject of the National Insurance Scheme. There was a meeting held at the Ministry of National Insurance to brief these speakers, who, I reiterate, are paid out of public funds, in order that they might speak with apparent impartiality to non-political bodies up and down the country. These speakers were briefed at this meeting partly from a number of Government publications, perfectly properly, and also from three publications, which I have here, issued by the Labour Party on the subject of National Insurance, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries), and Public Health.
These are very competent propaganda publications of the Labour Party; indeed, if they were not, it would be a very great reflection on the highly paid publicity officers of Transport House, and I am certainly not prepared to make it, for I have the greatest respect for their competence. Surely, it is absolutely wrong, when briefing speakers for the Central Office of Information, to brief them with material which, in its nature and origin, must be controversial in the party sense? When I questioned the Government about this, I received a reply from, of all people, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance, and his argument was that this was quite all right, but that, if we liked, he would also insert Conservative Party propaganda.

Mr. Dailies: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would produce a more complete picture if, at the same time, he produced a copy of the leaflet attempting to denigrate the whole scheme? Would he agree to that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I would not, because I am going to argue that it is quite wrong that the political party propaganda of any party should be put forward at the public expense. I know that the hon. Member is trying to score a party point which is irrelevant to the discussion. It would be quite wrong for the Ministry of National Insurance and the Central Office to insert the political propaganda of any party, and it is really an intolerably inept answer to say "We will take your propaganda as well as our own." This is a question of public speakers, publicly financed going out with the prestige of impartiality to address meetings like Women's Guilds, Women's Institutes, and so on, throughout the country. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion, and the mentality of the Government which it reveals, indicate to me how great is the danger of infecting this Central Office with party publicity.
I will pass briefly over several others of these productions. One is a film, which the Under-Secretary may know, called "Ours is the Land," in which a perfectly obvious Labour Party candidate, young, charming and attractive—though he is obviously a Labour candidate for reasons other than those—is portrayed, and in which these words are used:
They promised us houses in 1935. Look at Paisley and Dunfermline. Now, they have got them.
That is sheer partisan propaganda in a film produced at the public expense and displayed apparently impartially al over the country. Another subject which is also controversial is basic petrol—a subject on which the Under-Secretary will recollect the Government were not able to command a larger majority of their supporters than 27. A long publication has been put out to speakers on that subject and I would refer to only one part of it. It is this:
Moreover, we have not got enough tankers of our own. Some petrol has to be imported in American tankers for which we pay dollar freight.
If that is going to be put out on this subject, surely there should be some statement on why we have not got the tankers, how many were available in 1945 and how many could have been purchased if the fruits of the American loan had been used for that purpose instead of being squandered on films and tobacco.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Nonsense!

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not nonsense, and if the hon. Gentleman knew the facts, he would not be so quick to say so.
There is just one other matter I wish to raise, and I have warned the Under-Secretary that I propose to raise it. So far as the film production side of the Central Office of Information is concerned, we are entitled to have some explanation, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement this week, for the reasons for the appointment of Mr. John Grierson. He is a very capable producer and his film "Drifters" was a very lovely film. But it is well known on the other side of the Atlantic that there is no doubt whatever as to his affiliations with the extreme Left, using deliberately a neutral term, though both the Canadian and American authorities would use stronger language. The propaganda value of films is enormous as every hon. Member knows, and to have appointed a man with so pronounced views so far to the Left of His Majesty's Government is, to put it again at its lowest, a rash thing to do. It is easy in the production of a film to give a twist and a bias, and an incalculable twist carries an enormous effect to the minds of those who see it, and yet it is awfully hard to notice it in the script. With all respect to the technical capacity of Mr. Grierson, we are entitled to know why a man whose political attitude was so well known should be appointed, who appointed him—we do not know that in the anomalous organisation of this office unless we are told today—and is it intended that he should continue?
I am only too conscious of the inadequacy of the Adjournment Debate for a discussion of this subject, but I hope that in anticipation of providing material for Debates to come we may have answers to certain questions which I venture to raise this afternoon.

4.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), when he hoped that this was the first of a number of Debates on this very important matter. He was good enough to point out that it was a little odd that I should be replying,

though he did it in very nice words, and I should like first to explain to the House how it comes about that I am now speaking in this place. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has the responsibility for the Government's Information Services in general as distinct from departmental information services, but, with the approval of the Prime Minister, he asked me to help him from time to time in that work. For some months I have been doing that, though this is the first time that it has been announced, and in the course of that work I have had a chance of looking fairly closely into the Central Office of Information amongst other things. That is why I am here to reply to the hon. Gentleman. He limited himself to the field of home propaganda and he put two particular points. I will follow him as closely as I can through the arguments——

Mr. Marlowe: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it rather disturbing that he is responsible in this manner? Would he say what is his function in the Central Office of Information?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I have no function in the Central Office of Information. No one but the employees of the Central Office of Information have a function in it, but I have the function to advise and assist the Lord President of the Council in that part of his work which deals with the supervision of Government publicity.
First of all, it is untrue to describe the Central Office of Information as a Ministry of Information. It is not a Ministry of Information. The central services operate at the request and under the sponsorship of a number of State Departments. It is not, as it were, a Ministry with a policy of its own; the policy is decided by the various Ministerial Departments who use its services, both at home and abroad. It is, I think, essential that there should be such a common service for the Departments, partly because it is more economic. I agree that expense is very important, and we must watch it. It would be more expensive if we broke up that common system, with common overheads and so forth, and distributed them over all the Departments so that each, when it wanted to make a film, for example, had to set up a proper organisation to do so, or when it wanted to issue a publication like "Something Done" had to set up a particular editing system to do so.
Whether or not the Government have the right and the duty to make films and to spread information in this way is; I think, the principle which really divides us on this matter. I think it is absolutely essential with modern democracies, that the Government of the day, whatever its party position, should have a duty to undertake a far greater field of information work than was ever undertaken in the past. The modern world is extremely complex. The great danger to democracy is that people fail to understand the elaborate processes which are going on around them, especially in a world where extremely complex things, like dollar balances, affect their daily lives. They are in no position even to reach a rational decision one way or the other unless there is far more information at their disposal than was ever thought necessary in the past.
It is also necessary that the Government should, on occasion, undertake work of persuasion. It is essential to get certain recruiting done, for instance, or national savings, or to explain why salvage must be collected; there are certain sorts of work of persuasion.

Sir John Mellor: The hon. Gentleman said it was essential to help to get savings. Is it not a fact that the Central Office of Information does practically no work at all for the National Savings Movement?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The Central Office of Information is not identical with the Government's information work. There is other information work done, partly by the Departments and partly by other bodies. I gave examples of the type of thing I had in mind. In that connection, I want to say quite clearly that a very great work of public information has, in my view, been done by the Central Office of Information and other services of the Government in the last two years. I think today people have an infinitely better understanding and knowledge of the problems, than they had two or three years ago, a far better understanding of the complex problems of the balance of trade, the inter-connection of one thing with another, in this very complicated world in which we live. The ordinary people in the street, although we have not done enough yet, know infinitely more of these complex things than they did two years ago, and to that extent we are a

better democracy, and we are proud and glad that this work has been done.
I should say a word about the publication "Something Done," which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am glad he agrees with me that it is a first-class production technically; we are at one in that. I also think it is perfectly right that such a publication should be produced. It is essential and right that our people should know what they as a people—not this particular Government—have achieved in the period since the war in the field of jet planes, in looking after children, in the field of television, and so forth. This is work we have achieved as a people and it is right that we should be proud of ourselves. This publication will, of course, also go abroad.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I notice that two hon. Members are reading magazines, which is not permissible in the House.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: It is the publication which is under discussion. I do not know whether that makes it in Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is riot in Order to read magazines or newspapers. I notice two hon. Members reading them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman says that it is desirable that the people should know about recent developments. Could that not be done without any of the political risks to which I have referred simply by making more of this paper available to the technical and other Press?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: No, I do not think so, any more than if, in the war, in somewhat different circumstances, instead of producing those Government booklets we had merely given a similar amount of paper to the Press. I do not think it can be done any more today by that means than it could be in the war. In "Something Done" we have a very fine production which is going abroad, though it is sold at home as well.
I turn now to the question of political propaganda. Granted, for the moment, that we must have a Central Office of Information, or something like it, there is a risk of the line between public information and party propaganda being transgressed. I believe it is easy to draw that line, and that the Central Office of Information have, in fact, with


great success, drawn the line between claiming credit for a particular party Government for something done and informing the people. Here I am talking about trying to persuade the people to action. I admit that there is a risk, of which the Central Office of Information are aware, and I think it right to say that the risk is being avoided.
Everything the Central Office of Information does is wholly in the open. Everything it does is seen by the public, and everybody can see every booklet it puts out; any party or other organisation can have its lectures, and so on. If there were any hint of bias it would be known at once, and there is no attempt at canalisation into particular parts of the population, or anything like that. The whole thing is completely open. The hon. Member mentioned the very short reference to the direction of labour in "Matter of Fact, No. 5." It seems to me essential that when Parliament and the Government have decided on a thing like the direction of labour, it is the duty of the Government to make that plain and explain it to the people, for it is one of the great things affecting their lives. It would be a dereliction of our duty if we did not so inform them.
I must admit that on the question of briefing speakers on the National Insurance Scheme, the hon. Member is on much better ground. I think it was a mistake to put the three Labour Party publications in the same list with the Government publications. On the other hand, it is right to say that these Labour Party publications are not, in fact, propaganda publications; they set out to describe the workings of the Bill. They ought to have been put down in a different part of the list in order to make quite clear that they were not in any way Government publications. It should be remembered, too, that we are speaking of the briefing of speakers and not the actual speech made to the general public. The speakers are always told that if they in any way show party bias, or if there

is any complaint which is substantiated, they will at once be dismissed and stopped lecturing. That must be remembered alongside the other point.

Mr. McCorquodale: Who is to judge? Are the Government to judge whether there is party bias in their own favour?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: No, the people who employ them judge. Just as in any problem which arises in a Department of State, the people in charge of the particular public servants concerned are responsible.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: How many have been dismissed for such reasons?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: In the last year there have been 15,000 lectures, with two complaints which were about the organisation of the meetings and not political bias; therefore, the question of dismissing personnel has not arisen.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member mention John Grierson, in a speech which was otherwise devoted to the principle, because in this respect Mr. Grierson is in the position of a civil servant who cannot defend himself. He was in charge of Government film making in this country in the 10 years before the war, which was, therefore, mostly under a Conservative Administration; his chief work being at the Post Office when the late Sir Kingsley Wood was Postmaster-General. He served the Liberal Administration in Canada for seven years; he has advised the Governments of Australia and New Zealand; and he is now coming back into British documentaries, which he largely created, to do an essential job in the national interest, and in the interest of our films. I have no doubt whatever that he is by far the best man for the job, and that is why he has been appointed.

Question put, and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.